The Concern
An energy company was midway through a major infrastructure project, and by most measures it was going well. Read More
What We Did
Reconciled invoices and payment records against contracts, work orders and approved project scope to find billing that didn’t match agreed deliverables. Read More
What We Found
The subcontractor had billed for materials that were never delivered to site, backed by delivery documents that couldn’t be matched to store or logistics records. Read More
The Outcome
Leadership got a clear, evidence-backed account of the overbilling, its scale and the people responsible. Read More
The Concern
An energy company was midway through a major infrastructure project, and by most measures it was going well. Milestones were being met, site reports were positive and the main contractor kept confirming the project was on track. Yet the budget kept growing, with each quarter bringing new cost revisions that couldn’t be clearly tied to changes in scope or site conditions.
At first, the finance team put the overruns down to things common in large energy projects: rising material prices, logistics delays and unexpected technical requirements. But as the gap between spending and visible progress widened, those explanations stopped holding up. The invoices were properly approved and supported by documents, and nothing on paper looked wrong. That was exactly what worried leadership: if the paperwork was clean but the costs weren’t, the problem was likely inside the approval process itself.
The situation was sensitive. The project involved several contractors, subcontractors and internal stakeholders, and any visible inquiry risked disrupting operations, straining contractual relationships or alerting those involved. Leadership needed an independent and confidential investigation that would establish the facts, identify where the money was going and support any recovery or legal action that might follow.
What We Did
- Reconciled invoices and payment records against contracts, work orders and approved project scope to find billing that didn’t match agreed deliverables
- Compared billed quantities with on-site evidence, including material delivery logs, store records and physical verification of completed work
- Mapped the subcontractor network to understand who was performing which work and how payments moved down the contracting chain
- Ran background and relationship checks on the subcontractor and related entities to identify ownership links, conflicts of interest and any history of similar disputes
- Conducted structured interviews with project, procurement and site personnel, and documented every finding to an evidentiary standard to support recovery
What We Found
- The subcontractor had billed for materials that were never delivered to site, backed by delivery documents that couldn’t be matched to store or logistics records
- Labour and equipment hours were inflated well beyond what site attendance and machinery logs supported
- Some work was billed more than once under different work orders and descriptions, making the duplication hard to spot in routine reviews
- A site-level official responsible for certifying work had an undisclosed connection to the subcontractor’s ownership
- Weak independent verification meant certification and approval relied almost entirely on the contractor’s own reporting
The Outcome
- Leadership got a clear, evidence-backed account of the overbilling, its scale and the people responsible
- The client recovered a substantial share of the losses through contractual and legal channels
- The subcontractor was removed from the project and barred from future work
- The official involved faced disciplinary and legal action based on documented findings
- Vendor oversight was restructured, with independent certification of work, periodic billing audits and conflict-of-interest declarations across all projects