Big projects, big contracts, and small leaks that add up.
Power, oil and gas, and infrastructure businesses spend through large contracts, long projects and remote sites. We test every payment, measurement and claim against the contract, site by site.
01Where money leaks in energy and infrastructure
Contractor claims
Running bills, variations and escalations paid above what the contract allows.
Fuel and consumables
Fuel, lubricants and spares issued above what the equipment used.
Capex projects
Projects that overrun without approval, and assets paid for but never commissioned.
Billing and collections
Meter readings, tariffs and dues that leave revenue on the table.
Twelve use cases across contracts, sites, billing and compliance
- Variation and escalation checksContracts, bills, indices
- Measurement anomaliesRunning bills, site records
- Capex overrun signalsProject budgets, commitments
- Fuel reconciliationFuel issues, equipment hours, GPS
- Spares at remote sitesStores, issues, transfers
- Maintenance spend by assetWork orders, invoices, asset data
- Meter and tariff checksMeter data, tariffs, bills
- Unbilled connectionsConnection records, billing
- Dues and receivables ageingCustomer ledgers, collections
- Contractor and sub-vendor screeningVendor master, registries
- Permits and penaltiesPermits, obligations, notices
- Duplicate and split paymentsVendor master, invoices, payments
Each use case names the data it needs. Site, meter and equipment data usually sit outside the ERP.
One case: running bills on a large project
Projects: every bill is signed. The quantities don’t add up.
- Situation
- An infrastructure developer; contractor running bills checked by site engineers, with a sample reviewed by audit.
- What a sample misses
- Each bill has a measurement and a signature. The leak is in quantities billed twice across bills, or above the design.
- Data and technique
- Every running bill matched to the contract schedule, the design quantities and earlier bills; escalation recalculated from the index.
- Typical findings
- The same quantity claimed in two bills; escalation on materials the client supplied; variations paid before approval.
- Control fix
- Cumulative quantities checked against the design before each bill is paid; escalation calculated by the system, not the contractor.
On a long project, the overpayment hides in the running total, not in any one bill.
Illustrative composite case, read-only access.
Contracts, sites and billing: 12 tests to run first
| Contracts and projects | Sites and billing |
|---|---|
| Quantities billed above the design or the contract | Fuel issued above what the equipment ran |
| The same item claimed in two running bills | Spares issued to assets that don’t use them |
| Escalation on materials the client supplied | Stock moving between sites with no receipt |
| Variations paid before they were approved | Meters with readings that never change |
| Contractor advances not recovered | Tariffs billed below the approved rate |
| Retention released before the defects period ends | Connections live but not billed |
Thresholds are set for each site and project, and tuned on the results.
05Earn $ and Save $ in energy and infrastructure
An infrastructure developer stopped USD 1.4 Mn of duplicate and above-design quantities in contractor running bills across 3 projects.
أين تختبئ أموالك؟
06Other industries
أين تختبئ أموالك؟
ثلاث دقائق للحصول على تقدير. ثلاثون دقيقة للحصول على خطة. ستة أسابيع للحصول على نتائج مقدّرة القيمة على بياناتك.