Hydropower Project Oversight
A development lender needed to establish whether accountability mechanisms would function in a proposed hydropower co-financing arrangement. The assessment examined the contractor's relationships, procurement, audit and allocation of liability. The client restructured terms around the mechanisms that could operate.
A development lender evaluating co-financing of hydropower infrastructure required an assessment of whether accountability mechanisms would function. The contractor held decades-long relationships with successive governments; projects were delivered. Procurement records showed formal tender processes.
The contractor operated less as vendor than as co-sovereign: it prepared feasibility studies, proposed projects, then won tenders designed to exclude alternatives. When state delays caused losses, compensation flowed to the contractor; when contractor errors caused structural failure, no penalty applied. A tax evasion investigation had been dropped. The national audit office had been ordered to halt a performance audit; the state utility had not faced external audit for over a decade. Foreign government backing shielded the contractor from opposition.
The client restructured terms around the accountability mechanisms that could function, and ring-fenced those that could not.
The mandates below are drawn from hundreds of engagements over fifteen years, including work predating Periplus. Specific parties, jurisdictions and instructing firms are protected by confidentiality.