For every project that reaches a bank’s credit committee, there are dozens that never should have. They collapse not because the idea was poor, but because the due diligence was superficial. Technical Due Diligence (TDD) is the process that distinguishes investable projects from aspirational ones — and for investors, it is the first, and often last, line of defence against misrepresentation, over-optimism, or hidden design flaws.
In the modern infrastructure and energy landscape, the Owner’s Engineer (OE) is no longer just a designer’s reviewer — it is the institutional mechanism through which financiers validate truth. Its assessments determine whether a project is technically, contractually, and environmentally ready to support a financial model that can withstand a decade or more of repayment obligations.
For sponsors, the OE’s TDD process offers credibility; for banks, it is assurance; and for investors, it is the firewall between enthusiasm and capital exposure.
The anatomy of technical due diligence
TDD is a multi-dimensional process, not a box-checking exercise. Its scope includes:
- Engineering verification: Assessing completeness and coherence of design deliverables, adherence to standards (IEC, ISO, local codes), and constructability.
- Permitting and regulatory compliance: Confirming all licenses, land rights, and grid connection approvals are in place and legally valid.
- Contractual readiness: Reviewing EPC and O&M contract structures, interface definitions, warranty coverage, and liquidated damages frameworks.
- Schedule realism: Evaluating the logic of construction sequencing, resource allocation, and critical-path contingency.
- Cost accuracy: Comparing bill-of-quantities and supplier quotes against market benchmarks, and verifying contingency sufficiency.
- Performance parameters: Verifying output assumptions (yield, availability, efficiency) that feed directly into financial models.
Each of these elements forms a layer of investor defence. The OE’s findings translate engineering data into financial consequences. A missing geotechnical report is not merely a technical gap; it is a quantifiable risk that could alter foundation design, delay mobilisation, and inflate CAPEX — directly impacting IRR.
Lenders’ expectations: The language of assurance
Banks do not read blueprints; they read risk matrices. When the OE delivers a TDD report, it becomes the lender’s technical gospel. Lenders expect clarity on five key questions:
- Is the design complete and proven?
- Is the construction plan achievable within cost and time?
- Are suppliers, contractors, and technologies credible?
- Is the environmental and social compliance verifiable?
- What is the magnitude of residual risk, and who bears it?
The OE must answer these with defensible evidence, not generic opinion. A lender’s confidence—and therefore financing terms—depends on the quality of that evidence.
In many Western Balkans and Central European projects, investors have learned that a thorough OE review shortens credit-approval timelines by weeks. Lenders reduce “technical risk buffers” when due diligence is both comprehensive and transparent. Conversely, vague or incomplete TDD reports lead to prolonged negotiations, escalated contingencies, or even rejection.
Detecting red flags early
The most valuable findings in a due-diligence process are the uncomfortable ones. OEs identify red flags not to stop projects but to save them before exposure multiplies. Typical high-impact red flags include:
- Incomplete design maturity: Conceptual or FEED-level packages being presented as “Issued for Construction.”
- Under-tested geotechnical or hydrological data: Inadequate soil or flood assessment leading to underestimated civil works.
- Over-optimistic schedules: EPC durations that ignore procurement lead times or local permitting procedures.
- Insufficient contractor capacity: Single EPC entities overstretched across multiple projects without adequate sub-contractor depth.
- Inconsistent equipment specifications: Design elements not harmonised across vendors (voltage ratings, communication protocols, etc.).
- Weak commissioning plans: Lack of detailed testing sequences, threatening delay in commercial-operation milestones.
When detected early, these weaknesses are correctable. When ignored, they become contractual disputes, claims, or lender step-ins.
In Montenegro’s energy and infrastructure sector, one common issue the OE identifies is optimistic interconnection scheduling—developers assume grid access within months when actual connection studies require a year. The OE’s intervention recalibrates the financing plan before disbursement begins, aligning expectations with reality.
Translating engineering into financial risk
To investors, every technical flaw is a financial variable. The OE’s discipline lies in converting engineering uncertainty into monetary terms. A soil-improvement requirement might cost €1.2 million and delay schedule by two months; the OE quantifies that exposure and attributes it to either EPC contingency or owner’s reserve.
This translation builds accountability. Investors can then adjust the financial model: IRR, NPV, and debt-service-coverage ratios reflect real engineering dynamics rather than assumptions. The result is not necessarily lower cost but lower uncertainty—precisely what financiers value most.
Moreover, quantification prevents emotional decision-making. Instead of panicked cost escalation, investors see calibrated exposure, supported by evidence. The OE’s impartial data becomes the anchor in turbulent negotiation.
The human dimension of due diligence
Technical reports are produced by engineers, but they are read by financiers. The OE’s task is to bridge the cultural divide between these worlds. Engineers tend to speak in tolerances, while financiers speak in probabilities. The OE translates ± tolerances into quantified likelihoods of cost or schedule deviation.
Equally important is independence. The OE must maintain a clear separation from EPC contractors, suppliers, or developers. Its credibility rests on being answerable only to the investor or lender. In many project financings, the same OE acts simultaneously as Lenders’ Technical Advisor (LTA) and Employer’s Engineer, enforcing dual accountability.
This duality reinforces trust: lenders know that the party signing off on progress claims is the same entity that vetted the technical foundation of the project. The investor gains a unified view of both design and financing compliance.
Beyond financial close — continuous diligence
Traditional due diligence ends at financial close; modern practice extends it through construction and commissioning. Investors increasingly require “live TDD,” in which the OE updates risk assessments as the project evolves.
During execution, the OE monitors three parameters that define project health:
- Schedule performance: Are milestones achieved versus baseline?
- Cost performance: Are variations within contingency limits?
- Quality and compliance: Are installed works conforming to specification?
Each month, the OE’s progress reports function as rolling due-diligence updates. This ongoing validation keeps financiers informed and mitigates surprises.
At commissioning, the OE closes the diligence loop by verifying that the asset performs as modelled. Performance-acceptance tests, efficiency measurements, and reliability trials provide the final proof that the technical assumptions used to justify investment are now reality.
Lessons from incomplete due diligence
Case studies from energy and industrial projects across Southeast Europe highlight the cost of inadequate diligence. In one instance, a 400 kV substation project faced a six-month delay after discovering incompatible protection relays supplied by different vendors. The issue stemmed from a lack of interface review during TDD; the EPC had submitted equipment lists, but no system-level coordination study was validated. The investor incurred both time penalties and additional financing costs.
In another case, a wind-farm foundation redesign was required after soil bearing capacities were found 25% below assumed values. The redesign added €2.7 million to CAPEX. The absence of a comprehensive geotechnical review in the initial TDD meant the bank had to renegotiate loan covenants mid-construction — an outcome that could have been prevented by OE oversight.
Such cases underline a principle: early diligence is cheap insurance. A €150,000 OE review can avert multimillion-euro overruns and reputational risk.
Data, transparency, and the investor’s confidence
The value of TDD is proportional to transparency. The OE’s findings must be accessible, auditable, and traceable. Banks now demand digital repositories where all reviewed documents, drawings, and reports are indexed and timestamped. This creates a transparent chain of evidence from design verification to financing approval.
Transparency also encourages constructive alignment. Developers, contractors, and lenders can discuss risk openly when the OE’s findings are factual rather than subjective. TDD thereby transforms from a gatekeeping exercise into a collaborative governance platform.
For the investor, this transparency means fewer surprises and greater control. For the lender, it translates into measurable governance quality—an element increasingly embedded in credit-rating methodologies for project finance.
Technical due diligence as a culture of integrity
Ultimately, TDD is more than a procedural requirement; it is the embodiment of integrity in project development. It forces every stakeholder to validate what they claim and to understand what they risk.
The Owner’s Engineer sits at the core of this integrity system. Its independence ensures that facts, not ambition, define the investment case. When investors and financiers rely on the OE’s judgement, they rely on the discipline of engineering professionalism as the foundation of capital confidence.
The outcome of such discipline is visible: fewer disputes, faster drawdowns, smoother commissioning, and higher asset valuation. Technical due diligence may not build structures, but it builds trust — and in finance, trust is the most valuable infrastructure of all.
Elevated by www.clarion.engineer