Report review · Project appraisal
How to Read a TEV Report: Assumptions, Risks and Questions to Ask
Received a TEV report? Check its assumptions, evidence, funding and downside cases, then turn unresolved findings into a practical review log.
You have received the TEV report. Before relying on its conclusion, check whether its assumptions still describe the project you intend to build—and what remains unresolved. A favourable conclusion is conditional on its evidence, scope and assumptions; it does not guarantee finance or project success.
For definitions, report structure and preparation, use our TEV report guide. The workflow below starts with a completed or draft assessment in front of you.
1. Establish the report baseline
Record the version, issue date, information cut-off, intended recipient and purpose. Read the appointment scope and exclusions. Check that the report, drawings, quotations, implementation programme and financial model use the same capacity, cost and commissioning assumptions.
If a material input changed after the cut-off, identify it before treating the conclusion as current. Ask whether an addendum or revised assessment is needed; do not silently replace one spreadsheet and leave the report unchanged.
2. Read the qualifications first
Start with the conclusion, conditions, limitations and unresolved issues. “Viable subject to…” requires the words after “subject to” to be followed through the report. Distinguish a missing document from an assumption that could change the project’s feasibility.
Ask: which conditions support the conclusion, what evidence would close each one, and what happens if they are not met? Link each material qualification to the relevant cost, schedule, market or cash-flow analysis.
3. Connect technical capacity with revenue
Trace how installed capacity becomes saleable output and then sales. Check operating days, utilisation, ramp-up, yield, product mix and selling prices. Nameplate capacity is not a sales forecast. Compare production assumptions with utilities, staffing, raw-material availability and demand evidence.
Read the commissioning programme beside the revenue schedule. A delayed power connection, trial run or customer qualification can move receipts even when equipment has arrived. Ask whether that delay also changes interest during construction, working capital and the first repayment periods.
4. Separate evidence from forecasts
For each assumption that drives the result, note its source, date and basis. Separate observed facts, documentary evidence, third-party estimates and management forecasts. Check a quotation’s date, validity and scope; a letter of intent may have conditions; a market estimate does not establish the project’s own achievable sales.
Where a report relies on a forecast, ask why it is reasonable and how the result changes if it is wrong. Unsupported precision is a reason to seek evidence, not to assume certainty.
5. Trace project costs, working capital and funding
Reconcile the cost schedule with quotations and scope: civil works, equipment, installation, utilities, pre-operative expenses, interest during construction and contingency, as applicable. Look for omitted interfaces, inconsistent price dates and costs counted twice.
Follow working capital through inventory, receivables and payables. Then match the timing of expenditure to equity, proposed debt and other funding. Distinguish funding proposed in the model from funds committed or available. A balanced total does not prove cash will arrive when a payment falls due.
6. Check repayment period by period
Read cash available for debt service alongside interest and scheduled principal for each period. Confirm the cash-flow definition, loan terms, moratorium and calculation period. Annual or aggregate coverage can hide a shortfall when payments actually fall due; an accounting profit is not the same as available cash.
Review the downside cases that matter to this project: slower sales, lower prices, higher input costs, delayed commissioning or cost overruns. Ask whether linked effects move together and which assumptions cause the conclusion to change. Agree the relevant assessment criteria with the intended lender; there is no universal DSCR or IRR threshold that guarantees approval.
The educational DSCR calculator explains coverage and shortfalls. It does not replace the project model or the lender’s calculation method.
7. Distinguish pending permissions from granted ones
Read the approval register for status, validity, conditions and the activity each permission allows. “Applied for”, “recommended” and “granted subject to conditions” are different states. Check documentary evidence and identify what must happen before construction, trial operation or commercial operation, as applicable.
If an outstanding permission affects the assumed start date, carry that dependency into the programme and financial analysis. A permission listed in a report is not proof that it has been obtained.
8. Turn findings into a review log
Give each finding an evidence request, a responsible party, a due point and an assessment of its effect on the conclusion. The compact example below is entirely fictional and contains no client information.
| Finding | Evidence needed | Responsible party | Due point | Effect on conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sales start in Month 7; power connection is planned for Month 9. | Confirmed utility schedule and an aligned programme and cash-flow revision. | Project manager and model preparer | Before the report is finalised | Reassess early sales, construction interest and repayment timing. |
| Equipment quote excludes installation; the cost table assumes an all-in price. | Supplier clarification and revised cost and funding schedules. | Procurement and finance leads | Before the funding plan is settled | Check the extra cost and funding requirement; conclusion remains under review. |
| An operating consent is listed without its status. | Approval record, current status and any outstanding conditions. | Project compliance lead | Before relying on the operating start date | Confirm the operating dependency and whether the timing assumption remains supportable. |
Replace the illustrative due points with agreed dates in your own log. Record the response and report version that addresses each item. Ask the report’s responsible professional to assess whether new evidence changes the findings.
A factual correction or request for the basis of an assumption is appropriate. Asking for an evidenced risk to be removed so the proposal looks stronger is not. Keep the explanation, any revised analysis and the remaining qualification visible.
Keep the report, appointment and lending decision distinct
A TEV report is not necessarily prepared by a Lender’s Independent Engineer. The consultant’s appointment determines the work. LIE scope can include pre-financial-closure review and cost, progress and disbursement-related monitoring; it is not simply a technical-only report or automatically part of every TEV assignment.
The lender makes its own lending decision. At Bitcon, we do not arrange debt on a project where we act as the lender’s independent consultant. Clarify the appointing party, reporting responsibilities and agreed query support before requesting further work.
Read more about what a lender’s independent engineer certifies, or discuss the scope of TEV appraisal.
Technical scope references
This reading workflow is editorial guidance. These institutional documents illustrate assessment scopes; they are not universal requirements or endorsements of Bitcon. Use the appointment and applicable recipient requirements for your project.
- SIDBI TEV engagement scope — English General Scope, pages 7–8: evidence, project costs, approvals and information gaps.
- UCO Bank TEV and LIE scopes, 18 August 2025 — sections B and C, pages 5–7: viability analysis and appointment-specific engineering review.
- Bank of Maharashtra indicative TEV scope — Annexure IV, pages 8–9: technical, commercial, financial and regulatory assessment.
Ramesh Davane
Ramesh Davane is Managing Director of Bitcon, a Chartered Engineer and BEE Certified Energy Manager. With a mechanical engineering background, he leads work across TEV studies, DPRs, lender’s independent engineering and project management consultancy.