The problem
Capital is often approved on numbers nobody outside the room has tested. Boards approve multi-year commitments on information prepared by the functions whose decisions need oversight. In controlled environments it compounds: light, climate, energy and crop work as one system, capacity must meet contracted demand, and new licensed rooms earn nothing before their first released batch.
Untraceable assumptions
Yield, price, energy and utilisation rest on figures nobody wrote down.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailPayback slips when yield is assumed instead of measured. In one trial, cannabis yield rose with canopy light, from 116 to 519 grams per square metre (Rodriguez-Morrison et al., 2021). We trace each figure to its source and date.
No real competitive test
Suppliers and technologies are never compared on one scope.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailOffers differ most in what they leave out. We price each exclusion, restate all bids on one scope and one price basis, and fix the scoring before prices are opened. Scoring set later is justification.
Terms never benchmarked
Prices, warranties, service levels and liabilities go unchallenged.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailA DLC listing checks efficacy and asks for a five-year warranty, but not its terms or field failures (DLC, 2025). We read the terms and check who signs the warranty and whether they can pay.
Fit assumed, not validated
Lighting, climate, dehumidification and controls are bought separately.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailThe water a crop transpires can load the climate system as much as its heat, or more (Resource Innovation Institute, 2022). A second tier doubles the canopy in the same air. We check the sizing for both.
A budget missing its tail
Installation, commissioning, validation, spares and contingency are left out.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailProjects tend to cost more, deliver less and run later than planned (HM Treasury Green Book, 2026). Licensed sites then add their own regulatory tail of licence amendment, qualification, validation and inspection. We test both cost and date.
Self-reported progress
Savings and progress are reported by the people who own the targets.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailEach saving is identified, committed, implemented and then verified, and only the verified saving is cash. A saving enters the ledger once your finance function signs it against the baseline, so the board sees the gap between claim and cash.
Numbers
Before your board signs, test every savings promise against the published evidence. These ranges show what procurement, capital project and energy work have actually delivered elsewhere, so a claim far outside them is the first question to ask.
procurement cost take-out, as a share of spend (APQC, date to verify)
to 30% of capital project cost captured through capital expenditure management (McKinsey & Company, consultant source)
to 25% less total greenhouse energy, high-pressure sodium to LED, by climate (Katzin et al., 2021)
Published references, not our results and not a promise for your case: median procurement cost take-out of 2.0% of spend (APQC, date to verify); 15 to 30% of capital project cost captured through capital expenditure management (McKinsey & Company, consultant source, "How capital-expenditure management can drive performance"); 15% bottom-line procurement savings, a 5 to 10% reduction of the cost base (McKinsey & Company, consultant source, "Using a rapid procurement transformation to generate cash quickly"); 10 to 25% total energy savings from high-pressure sodium to LED transitions in greenhouses, rising with the share of energy used for lighting (Katzin et al., Applied Energy, 2021; greenhouse study, indicative for indoor facilities). No benchmark enters your case until it is rebuilt from your documents.
The solution
A verdict your board can vote on. Your team writes the capital approval paper; we test it and put one verdict on its cover: approve, approve with conditions, renegotiate, re-tender, defer pending evidence, decline, each with its trigger.
Recommendation: defer pending evidence
Management asks 26 800 000 EUR for a two-tier indoor block and a greenhouse. As filed: first GMP-released harvest month 36, not 16; conditioned, 2 600 000 EUR below the 12% hurdle. Bring back before award:
- Indoor bid tested against a second bid or should-cost.
- Tier yields from a rack trial; an indoor price floor signed.
- Licence path pre-consulted; no planting before the grant.
- Written grid offer; transformer, switchgear and generator slots held.
- Delay damages tied to rooms ready for planting.
- Greenhouse only on signed 5-year offtake at 1.75 EUR per gram or more.
Modelled illustration, not a client engagement. Contract findings are commercial risk findings, for confirmation by your counsel. Converts at a 3.09 EUR per gram floor or 560 g per m2 tier yields.
Report
- 01Executive conclusion and verdict: one of six verdicts, with its trigger, on page one
- 02Business case and its assumptions: value, suppliers, duration and financing, each input logged
- 03Market comparison and price competitiveness: bids normalised to one scope and price basis
- 04Supplier risk rating: 1 Low to 5 Critical, each level with its standard action
- 05Technical and operational fit, as one system: light, climate, dehumidification, energy, controls
- 06Contract risk and protections: guarantees, delay damages, retention, tests, for your counsel
- 07Budget, schedule and contingency: estimate class, P50 and P90 cost and date, the critical path
- 08Savings quantified: CapEx, OpEx and weeks kept apart, never summed without the split
- 09Risk register ranked in EUR: severity x probability, exposure, owner; 15 or more to the board
- 10Conditions precedent with a 30, 60 and 90 day plan: each tied to award or fund release
- 11Board dashboard: KPIs that track the implementation, each with a fixed definition, target and owner
- 12Evidence index, assumption log and independence declaration: sources by tier, limitations
- A savings plan
- A SAFe plan
- An implementation roadmap
- A CFO-signed baseline
- An opportunity register
- Should-cost models
- Total cost of ownership models
- Bid tables, exclusions priced
- A contract risk heat map
- A verified savings ledger
- A board dashboard (The Value Office)
How we check
One closed loop, from baseline to verified value. Hypothesis-driven, tied to the decision on your agenda. Before step 1, every party in scope is checked against our conflict register; where a conflict cannot be managed by disclosure, we decline. For savings work the loop closes only when your finance function has verified the money; for a review, at the verdict.
- 1Framethe decision, the owner, the deadline
- 2Baselinethe baseline of comparison, signed by your CFO
- 3Diagnosespend, contracts, assets, energy, specifications
- 4Quantifynet benefit after cost and risk; CapEx, OpEx and time apart
- 5Prioritisethe implementation strategy, by impact and time to cash
- 6Executetenders, negotiations, changes, owners, gates
- 7Verifyyour finance function signs every saving
- 8Sustaincontrols and a KPI dashboard, so costs do not creep back
The ruleVerified saving = normalised baseline cost - actual cost - implementation cost - adverse operational impact. Normalisation follows the international measurement protocol (IPMVP): the baseline spans a full operating cycle, for a greenhouse a heating and lighting season; weather, volume and lit hours are adjusted routinely, a new room, crop or machine separately. No saving is counted twice, and none comes from a downgrade you did not approve in writing.
How we check
Every conclusion carries its evidence
Each finding traces to a document, a market test, a supplier check or a stated assumption, with source and date. We take efficacy from a test report and GMP status from the public EU certificate database, never a brochure; two sources quoting one study count as one. A second reviewer outside the engagement challenges each finding.
Your finance function keeps the gate
Only savings your finance team has verified against the signed baseline enter the ledger. Hard savings count; cost avoidance counts only with written evidence, and risk reduction is reported, never charged. Savings committed before the engagement starts are excluded.
Quality is not negotiable currency
A saving that lowers specification, compliance, safety, yield, uptime or warranty is excluded by rule. For licensed indoor sites, EU guidance asks for daily digital records of critical parameters and qualified, calibrated equipment (EMA GACP Rev. 1, 2025); no saving may weaken them. A downgrade counts only with your written approval.
Sectors
Facility due diligence for licensed medical cannabis, floriculture and horticulture, from seed to harvest.
Licensed medical cannabis
GACP cultivation, EU-GMP post-harvest, from mother plant to released batch.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailPrices fall faster than plans: one exporter's average price for dried flower into the leading import market fell 26% in 11 months (trade press, 2026). We test your case at a falling price.
Floriculture
Cut flowers, pot plants, young plants and propagation.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailA crop that misses its sales date loses its price, so we test that date as a hard milestone. One infected cutting source led to a response at over 650 sites (Dickstein et al., 2024).
Horticulture
Greenhouse vegetables, vertical farms, leafy greens and herbs.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailThe power bill decides the case: modelled vertical farms need 2.3 to 7.8 kWh per kg of lettuce, a greenhouse 3.8 before heat (Meeuws et al., 2026). We test yours on metered kWh, heat included.
Every CEA system
Greenhouses, single-layer and multilayer rooms, vertical farms, chambers.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailEach system fails in its own place: a greenhouse in its blackout hours, a two-tier room under the upper tier, a vertical farm on its power bill, a growth chamber in its records. We review yours.
7 to 15 months late
How far the regulated sites we traced ran behind their announced date, at completion, first harvest or GMP certificate (trade press, filings; derived).
About a third, closed
Share of one market's licensed indoor and greenhouse growing area closed within three years of its peak, amid overproduction and falling prices (trade press, 2023).
The scope the builder wrote
The turnkey builder guarantees the scope it wrote. Nobody outside checks that scope, or the builder's record and finances, against your crop plan and licence.
Packages
Four packages, one engine. The package follows from the trigger, not from a menu: due diligence on CapEx and OpEx, a baseline of comparison, a concrete implementation strategy and a KPI dashboard to track it, plus project due diligence so a new or expanded facility is ready on time. Where the large firms describe outcomes, we name the work.
Cost and Supplier Due Diligence
Operating facilities
Hover for the detailTap for the detailRecurring costs, supplier contracts, equipment and working practices, reviewed on documents you already have and without disturbing production. Every contract gets its renewal date and notice period: the last day to act before it renews. Scan 1 week; detailed review 3 to 6 weeks; verification up to 12 months.
Expansion and Investment Due Diligence
Expansions and retrofits that must open on time
Hover for the detailTap for the detailCost locks at design freeze; delay hides in the grid connection, the long-lead plant and, in licensed sites, the licence amendment and qualification. We rebuild the case on your own evidence, test bids against should-cost and map the critical path to the date you need. Track 6 to 15 months.
Investor-Grade Project Due Diligence
New builds, from thesis to first harvest or release
Hover for the detailTap for the detailFrom investment thesis to productive operation, and in licensed production to the first released batch: after the build come qualification on site, validation crops, inspection and release. Nine gates, G0 to G8, each passed on evidence, not a date, and every week to first release valued in EUR.
The Independent Review
Boards, investors, lenders
Hover for the detailTap for the detailA fixed-scope, fixed-fee examination when independence itself is the product: before a commitment or a drawdown, at refinancing, in a turnaround, or after a project missed its promises. One clear verdict; lenders rely on it by signed letter. Typically 2 to 6 weeks; never contingent on the finding.
Plus The Value Office: the KPI dashboard that tracks the implementation for your board, monthly in delivery phases, quarterly in steady state: CapEx approved, committed and forecast, weeks to first harvest or release, contingency left and the verified savings ledger. Try the quick check
Who pays us
No supplier pays us to win your business.
Reviews paid by you.
No supplier pays us in connection with your review.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailNo commission, referral fee, success fee, rebate, reseller or agency income from any supplier, contractor, vendor, energy provider or platform in connection with your decisions. We sell no equipment.
Conflict check before every proposal.
Checked and disclosed in writing before a letter is signed.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailEvery prior relationship with you, the target or any supplier in scope is checked and disclosed in writing. Where a conflict cannot be managed by disclosure, we decline.
Fees in writing, never contingent.
You know the basis before we begin.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailIndependent reviews are fixed fee, never contingent on the finding. On operating savings work, the fee is a share of savings your own finance function has verified. No open meter.
No savings from downgrades.
Specification, quality, compliance and safety are protected by rule.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailA saving that breaks specification, compliance, safety, yield or uptime is excluded by rule. Baselines are normalised to a named index, so neither side gains from price weather.
Numbers name their source.
Measured, modelled, or unsourced: said on the spot.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailEach figure is labelled on the same page it appears, with its date. Where there is no source, we write that instead of carrying it forward.
Named addressee. Your counsel decides law.
Written to the person who carries the risk.
Hover for the detailTap for the detailReports are written to the person who carries the risk; reliance by others is granted only in writing. Contract findings are commercial risk findings, for confirmation by your counsel.
Confidentiality as a core value. Your data, the suppliers in scope and your project stay confidential and are never published, not even in our marketing. A confidentiality agreement can come first.
What it costs
Agreed in writing before any chargeable work.
The first analysis is free
You send one document. We return a first analysis and a proposal at no cost, and you decide with both in hand.
Operating savings: performance-linked
The fee is a share of savings your own finance function has verified against the signed baseline. No verified saving, no fee.
Independent reviews: fixed fee
Work for boards, investors and lenders is never contingent on the finding, because the finding is the product.
Projects: milestone-based
Expansions and new builds combine agreed fees at defined gates with performance elements where verification is possible.
No open meter
Every fee is agreed in writing before chargeable work begins. The terms belong in your proposal, not on this site.
1 Send one document: a contract, tender, invoice or budget line that worries you.
2 Free first analysis: what we see, what it may be worth, and a proposal.
3 You decide: scope, fee basis and baseline agreed in writing before work begins.
If we find nothing worth your time, we say so in writing, which is also worth having.
FAQ
You do. No supplier, contractor or platform pays us anything in connection with your review or its outcome: no commission, referral fee, success fee, rebate or reseller income. We sell no equipment and hold no reseller, agency or distribution agreement. Every party in scope is checked against our conflict register first.
Yes. Send one document: a contract, a tender, a schedule, a business case or a budget line. We return a first analysis and a proposal at no cost. If we find nothing worth your time, we say so in writing. Any scan or review after that is scoped and priced in the proposal.
We do not replace management or procurement and we do not grade them: we review what is bought, not who is employed. Management checks our facts before issue; the conclusions stay ours. A tested case makes their negotiation stronger and gives the board a reason to approve.
The document behind the decision and a named owner on your side. For an operating site: 12 months of energy invoices, the top 20 supplier invoices and the current contracts. For a project: the tender pack, every compliant offer, the schedule, the grid offer and the budget with its contingency.
An independent review typically takes 2 to 6 weeks, scoped to the decision and its deadline. Operating reviews start with a one-week scan.
Your data, the suppliers in scope and the project characteristics stay confidential under the engagement letter, and a confidentiality agreement can come first. Redacted documents are fine for the first analysis. For sensitive files we set up a secure transfer before anything is sent.
No. Contract findings are commercial risk findings, for confirmation by your counsel. Where you are licensed, we read the scope against your licence and quality system; regulatory opinions sit with your qualified person and counsel, and we certify nothing. We do not provide statutory, legal, tax or investment advice.
We do not present a modelled number as a delivered result, or publish client names or project details. We review designs; we do not sign them. Our work is independent commercial review, not a statutory examination of accounts. Nothing on this site is an offer; no engagement exists until a letter is signed by both parties.
We map the critical path to the first released batch: grid connection, long-lead plant and, in licensed sites, the licence amendment, qualification, validation crops and inspection. Six months into one build, a producer found its grid circuit could not carry the load; the utility quoted two years to replace it (trade press, 2021).
CEA due diligence tests one decision in controlled environment agriculture: spend and data, suppliers, contract, the fit of light, climate, water and controls and, for a new facility, the opening date. Then a signed baseline, an implementation strategy and a KPI dashboard. We test the yield your case assumes, not your crop plan.