Research & Analytics

Project Research & Feasibility Studies

Independent evidence on whether a project should be built, funded, and at what scale.

An independent feasibility study that tests demand, technical viability and financial returns before capital is committed. Delivered as a full report, an unlocked driver-based financial model and, where required, a Detailed Project Report in the structure lenders expect.

Typical turnaround
Six to ten weeks for a single-location project of moderate complexity, measured from receipt of the core data pack. Multi-site programmes, projects needing extensive primary field research, or those with a long regulatory approval chain typically run ten to sixteen weeks. Assembling a lender-format DPR adds one to two weeks after the model is signed off. Delays are almost always driven by promoter data availability and equipment quotation turnaround rather than analysis time.
Service code
ART-PRF-008
Engagement models
Fixed fee per study · Phased milestone billing · Retainer across a multi-project pipeline
Delivery
Virtual, secure document exchange

Indicative fee from

₹2,50,000

Indicative fee for a single-site feasibility study including a driver-based financial model. Final fee is confirmed after scoping and varies with project scale, primary research intensity, number of locations and whether a lender-format DPR is required.

Request Consultation
  • Engagement letter issued before work begins
  • Named engagement lead and defined reporting cadence
  • Confidentiality and access controls on all workpapers
  • Fee adjusted if the confirmed scope is smaller

Prefer to talk first? Call +91 7303967800 or message us on WhatsApp.

Description

A project proposal almost always arrives with a business case attached, and the business case is almost always built by the people who want the project approved. That is not dishonesty; it is proximity. Demand assumptions get anchored to the best year on record. Capital cost is estimated at budgetary quotation rather than landed cost. The working capital cycle is assumed to behave the way it does in the mature business rather than the way it behaves in the first year of a new one.

The cost of that optimism is asymmetric. An over-conservative study costs an opportunity that can be revisited. An over-optimistic study commits fixed capital to an asset that cannot be unwound: land bought, plant ordered, term debt drawn against a debt service coverage ratio that never materialises. Credit committees and investment committees understand this, which is why an independently prepared feasibility study carries weight that an internal deck does not.

What the engagement covers

Market size is built twice and reconciled. Top-down sizing establishes TAM, SAM and a realistically addressable SOM from published industry, trade association and government data. Bottom-up sizing rebuilds the same number from catchment, installed capacity, price points and conversion assumptions that can each be defended in isolation. Technical feasibility covers process route, plant and machinery configuration, utilities load, land and built-up area requirement, and the statutory approval path with its critical dependencies. Financial feasibility is a driver-based model rather than a set of hard-coded projections, carrying capex phasing, means of finance, moratorium and repayment ladder, DSCR, IRR, NPV, payback and break-even, with unit economics stated per unit of output so the contribution structure is visible rather than implied.

Where the study gets stress-tested

A single base case is not a study. One-way sensitivities are run on the three or four variables that genuinely move the outcome, typically realisation, capacity utilisation, principal input cost and interest rate. Scenario analysis then moves them in combination, because in practice they rarely move alone. The output is the range of conditions under which the project services its debt and the specific point at which it stops doing so. Where a lender submission is contemplated, the model and narrative are assembled into a Detailed Project Report in the structure term-lending institutions expect, with annexures traceable to source.

How the virtual delivery model works here

Desk research, primary interviews, model build and review all run remotely on a documented weekly cadence. Source material lands in a controlled data room, and every external figure in the report carries a citation, so any number can be traced back to where it came from. Client-side inputs such as equipment quotations, land documents, promoter financials and existing plant data are collected through a single structured request list rather than an open-ended email thread. Where physical verification is genuinely required, it is scoped explicitly and carried out by client-nominated personnel or an independent surveyor, and the report states plainly what was verified on site and what was not.

Who this is built for

Promoters taking a greenfield or brownfield expansion to a bank or NBFC. Boards that want a second opinion on a capex proposal already on the table. Private equity funds and family offices testing a sponsor projection before committing. Development-sector and government-linked bodies that require an independent viability opinion on record before sanction.

Engagement models

Fixed fee per study · Phased milestone billing · Retainer across a multi-project pipeline

Expected turnaround

Six to ten weeks for a single-location project of moderate complexity, measured from receipt of the core data pack. Multi-site programmes, projects needing extensive primary field research, or those with a long regulatory approval chain typically run ten to sixteen weeks. Assembling a lender-format DPR adds one to two weeks after the model is signed off. Delays are almost always driven by promoter data availability and equipment quotation turnaround rather than analysis time.

Scope of Work

  • Top-down TAM, SAM and SOM sizing from industry, trade body and government sources, reconciled line by line against an independent bottom-up build
  • Primary demand validation through structured interviews with prospective buyers, channel partners, distributors and other participants in the target value chain
  • Competitive landscape mapping covering installed capacity, announced expansions, import exposure, substitution risk and the realistic pricing corridor
  • Technical feasibility review of process route, plant and machinery configuration, utilities load, land and built-up area requirement and layout adequacy
  • Regulatory and approvals pathway covering environmental clearance, consent to establish and operate, factory licensing, land use conversion and sector registrations
  • Capital cost estimation at landed cost including duties, freight, erection, contingency and interest during construction, phased against the construction schedule
  • Driver-based five to ten year financial model with integrated profit and loss, balance sheet and cash flow, working capital cycle, depreciation and tax schedules
  • Means of finance structuring across promoter contribution, term debt sizing, moratorium and repayment ladder, with resulting DSCR tested against lender norms
  • Unit economics build showing contribution per unit of output, break-even volume and utilisation, and the operating leverage embedded in the fixed cost base
  • One-way sensitivity and multi-variable scenario analysis on realisation, utilisation, input cost and interest rate, each carried through to DSCR and covenant impact
  • Risk register covering market, technical, execution, regulatory and financial risk with mitigation actions, owners and residual risk rating
  • Detailed Project Report assembled in lender submission format with assumption schedules, annexures and citations traceable to underlying source data

Key Deliverables

Feasibility Report

The full written study covering market, technical, regulatory, financial and risk assessment, with an explicit conclusion on viability and the conditions attached to it.

Driver-Based Financial Model

An unlocked Excel model with separated input, calculation and output sheets, integrated three statements, and a live sensitivity panel. You keep it and can rerun it as assumptions change.

Detailed Project Report (DPR)

Where a term loan submission is planned, the study is restructured into the DPR format lenders expect, with means of finance, repayment schedule, DSCR workings and supporting annexures.

Market Sizing and Demand Pack

The full sizing workings for both the top-down and bottom-up build, the reconciliation between them, interview notes in anonymised form, and a source register for every external figure used.

Sensitivity and Scenario Appendix

Tabulated outcomes across the tested variable ranges, showing where IRR, DSCR and break-even move, and identifying the specific thresholds at which the project stops being bankable.

Risk Register and Approvals Roadmap

A rated risk register with mitigation owners, alongside a sequenced approvals map showing which clearances gate which activities and where the critical path actually sits.

Board and Investment Committee Presentation

A decision-grade summary deck that carries the conclusion, the three or four numbers it depends on, and the downside case, formatted for a committee reading it cold.

How the Engagement Runs

Scoping and assumption charter

We agree the project definition, the decision the study has to support, geographic and product boundaries, and the level of primary research required. Promoter, project sponsor and any lending institution requirements are captured here. The phase closes with a signed scope note and a structured data request list.

Data collection and primary research

Secondary sources are gathered and logged with citations while structured interviews run with buyers, channel participants and suppliers. Client-side documents, equipment quotations and site data are collected through the data room. The phase closes when the source register is complete enough to support sizing.

Market, technical and regulatory assessment

Top-down and bottom-up sizing are built and reconciled, the technical configuration is assessed against the intended output, and the approvals pathway is mapped with indicative timelines. Findings are reviewed with the project sponsor and any technical consultant already engaged before they are locked.

Financial model build and unit economics

The driver-based model is constructed with integrated statements, capex phasing, means of finance and repayment schedule. Unit economics and break-even are derived from the same drivers rather than stated separately. A model walkthrough with the finance team closes the phase.

Stress testing and review

Sensitivities and combined scenarios are run, DSCR and covenant headroom are tested at each downside, and the risk register is finalised. Draft findings are presented to management, including any conclusion management may not want to hear. Comments are logged and addressed on record.

Report finalisation and handover

The report, annexures and, where applicable, the DPR are finalised and issued alongside the unlocked model. A handover session walks the finance team through the model architecture so it can be maintained internally. Post-issue clarification support for lender queries is agreed at this point.

What You Gain

Capital committed on evidence

The go or no-go decision rests on assumptions that have been separately sourced and independently tested, rather than on a projection prepared by the party advocating the project.

A model lenders can interrogate

Credit teams can change a driver and watch DSCR move, which shortens appraisal and reduces the cycle of clarification queries that stalls sanction.

Downside understood in advance

You know before drawdown at what utilisation and what realisation the project stops servicing debt, which informs both the debt quantum and the contingency you hold.

Approvals sequenced, not discovered

Clearances that gate construction are identified at the start and placed on the critical path, avoiding the idle capital cost of a plant waiting on a consent.

An independent record for the board

Directors have documented evidence of the diligence applied to a major capital decision, which matters when the project is reviewed later against outcomes.

A defensible decision not to proceed

Where the numbers do not work, the study gives management a clear, sourced basis to stop or restructure the project before irreversible cost is incurred.

Industries We Serve With This Engagement

Manufacturing and IndustrialFood Processing and AgribusinessRenewable Energy and PowerHealthcare and HospitalsHospitality and Real EstateLogistics and WarehousingChemicals and Speciality MaterialsEducation and Skilling

Frequently Asked Questions

A feasibility study answers a decision question: should this project proceed, at what scale, and under what conditions. It is written for the promoter, the board or the investor, and it is allowed to conclude that the project should not proceed. A Detailed Project Report is a submission document. It presents an already-decided project to a lending institution in the sequence and format that appraisal teams expect, with means of finance, repayment schedule, DSCR workings and supporting annexures. In practice the DPR is assembled from the feasibility study once the promoter has decided to proceed, which is why we build the analysis so it can serve both purposes without being rewritten.

Lenders generally prefer independently prepared studies, because the alternative is appraising a projection written by the borrower. What determines acceptance is not who prepared the study but whether it can be interrogated: whether external figures carry citations, whether the model is driver-based rather than hard-coded, whether the DSCR calculation is visible, and whether the downside cases are honest. Individual institutions may additionally require reports from panel-empanelled agencies for specific scheme-linked lending, so it is worth confirming the requirement with the lending branch before scoping. We build to the evidentiary standard appraisal teams apply regardless.

Market, competitive and regulatory work is largely independent of you. Technical and financial work is not. Equipment quotations, land documents, promoter and group financials, existing plant performance data and any technical consultant output all have to come from your side, and the study cannot be more accurate than those inputs. We issue a single structured request list at scoping rather than drip-feeding requests, and we flag in the report where an input was taken as represented by management and not independently verified. Schedule slippage on feasibility engagements is far more often a data availability problem than an analysis problem.

We take a view. A study that lays out data and leaves the conclusion to the reader has not done the work. The report states whether the project is viable, at what scale, and what conditions that conclusion depends on, and it identifies the specific variables that would invalidate it. Where the evidence is genuinely mixed, we say so and set out what additional information would resolve it rather than manufacturing false confidence. Management is free to disagree, and any disagreement raised during draft review is recorded rather than quietly absorbed into the final text.

You receive that conclusion in full, with the workings behind it. A negative finding is not a failed engagement; it is usually the cheapest outcome available, because the alternative is discovering the same thing after land, plant and debt are committed. In many cases the study identifies that the project is unviable at the proposed scale or configuration but viable at another, so the recommendation is a restructuring rather than an abandonment. We do not adjust assumptions to reach a predetermined answer, and we will not issue a report we cannot support.

Yes. The delivery model is remote by design, and we work with clients across the GCC, UK, US, Singapore and Australia. What changes across jurisdictions is the regulatory and approvals layer, the tax and depreciation treatment inside the model, and the lender conventions the report has to satisfy. Financial statements can be modelled under Ind AS, IFRS or US GAAP presentation as required. Where a project depends on local licensing we will not represent local approval timelines as certain without a named local source, and the report will say so explicitly.

Every external figure carries a citation with its publication date, and the source register in the appendix lists them together so you can see the vintage of the evidence base at a glance. Where the most recent authoritative data is materially dated, which is common in fragmented or unorganised sectors, we say so and lean harder on primary interviews and bottom-up construction to compensate. We do not present an interpolated or estimated figure as though it were published data, and we do not cite a number we cannot point to a source for.

Yes. The model is delivered unlocked, with input, calculation and output layers separated, no hidden sheets, and assumptions held in one place rather than scattered through formulas. A handover walkthrough with your finance team covers the architecture so the model can be maintained and rerun internally as costs, prices or interest rates move. This matters more than it sounds: a project model that cannot be updated stops being useful the month after it is delivered, and lenders frequently ask for refreshed cases during appraisal.

Related engagements

Often scoped alongside this

Investment Research

An offshore research desk that carries the model building, earnings updates, comparable analysis and note drafting…

View

Business Valuation Services

Independent valuation of businesses, shares and intangible assets for transactions, fundraising, ESOP schemes, regulatory filings, financial…

View

Want this scoped to your situation first?

Tell us the specifics. We will confirm whether this is the right engagement, what it would cost, and how long it would take.

Request Consultation Browse Services