Engineering, Consulting & Financing
Water Feasibility & Due Diligence Companies
Techno-economic feasibility, environmental, and M&A due-diligence firms for water assets and deals.
This page is a good fit if you need:
- Cartridge Filters or Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Filters capabilities
- Suppliers with contractors sector experience
- Providers operating in United Kingdom or Netherlands
- Providers
- 11
- Verified
- 1
- Countries
- 3
Can't find the right fit? Post a brief and let qualified suppliers come to you.
Post a projectHow to choose a water feasibility & due diligence provider
Start with providers that clearly operate in your target geography and project footprint.
Look for industry exposure that matches your water challenge, compliance constraints, and deployment context.
Use technologies, service scope, and proof signals to narrow the list before reaching out to suppliers.
Not sure where to start? Our experts can help.
Filter results
Verified providers
1 claimed companies in this category
Country
Industry
Technology
Find a Water Feasibility & Due Diligence Provider
Showing 1-11 of 11
11 results from 11 matched providers
Water Project Feasibility Studies: Optioneering, Cost Estimation, and Business Case Development
Water project feasibility studies are the structured technical and economic assessments that precede capital investment decisions for water supply, wastewater treatment, or water resources projects. A feasibility study defines the project need, identifies and evaluates options, recommends a preferred solution, and produces a cost estimate sufficient for business case approval. Stages: (1) Problem definition: characterise the driver (population growth demand, regulatory compliance, asset failure, climate resilience, environmental target); establish design basis (population projections, demand forecast, water quality standards, consent conditions); (2) Options identification: generate long list of technically viable solutions (typically 8 to 15 options); initial screening against non-negotiables (planning constraints, EA environmental considerations, land availability); (3) Multi-criteria analysis (MCA): weighted scoring of shortlisted options (typically 4 to 8) against technical, economic, environmental, social, and programme criteria; Ofwat and water companies use structured option assessment frameworks (OAF); (4) Preliminary design: concept-level design of preferred and shortlisted options (P50 cost estimates to AACE Class 4 or RIBA Stage 1 accuracy: typically +50/-30 percent); (5) Economic appraisal: whole-life costing (NPC, net present cost, at 3.5 percent real discount rate per HM Treasury Green Book; or WACC for water company investment); cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for WINEP or WRMP submissions; value engineering workshop. Cost estimation standards: AACE International classification system (Class 5: +100/-50 percent for concept screening; Class 4: +50/-30 percent for feasibility; Class 3: +30/-15 percent for preliminary design; Class 2: +20/-10 percent for control estimate; Class 1: +10/-5 percent for bid/tender).
Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) feasibility: water companies in England and Wales are required by Ofwat and the EA to publish a WRMP every 5 years (WRMP24, covering 2025 to 2050); WRMP includes a supply-demand balance assessment and identifies the preferred programme of demand management and supply enhancement to maintain at least 99.9 percent levels of service (99.9 percent reliability of supply in all years, defined by EA's WRMP guidelines). WRMP feasibility studies assess: demand management (metering, leakage reduction, water efficiency); non-potable sources (treated wastewater reuse, greywater, rainwater harvesting); new abstractions (groundwater, surface water, transfers); storage (new reservoirs, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR)); desalination; bulk transfers (inter-company transfers; National Water Grid concept). Gate reviews: WRMP options go through: Long List Assessment (LLA); Short List Assessment (SLA); Final Options Assessment (FOA); Preferred Programme Assessment (PPA). RAPID (Regulators Alliance for Progressing Infrastructure Development): joint process of Ofwat, EA, and Natural Resources Wales for multi-company water supply projects (new reservoirs, transfers); RAPID programme reviews include Swindon and Oxfordshire reservoir, transfers between regions. Water Framework Directive WFD Article 9: cost recovery principle requires that water services pricing reflects full costs including environmental and resource costs; feasibility of water charges must consider WFD cost recovery obligations.
Business case development for water projects: Ofwat regulatory framework requires water companies to present a business case for capital expenditure during Price Review (PR24 submissions in 2023 for AMP8 2025 to 2030); HM Treasury Five Case Model applies to publicly funded water projects (strategic, economic, commercial, financial, and management cases); water company business cases structured to Ofwat's Business Plan Guidance (BPG) requirements: total expenditure (totex) baseline; outcome delivery incentives (ODIs); innovation; risk and return. Key documents: Outline Business Case (OBC) with cost estimate to Class 3 accuracy; Final Business Case (FBC) with Class 2 accuracy and procurement strategy. Optioneering tools: IWA (International Water Association) SSP (Strategic Scenario Planner); WaterGEMS network optimisation; WRAP (Water Resource Allocation Planning) model for catchment-scale water balance; cost model benchmarking against EA Infrastructure Cost Estimates (ICE database) and Spon's Civil Engineering Price Book. Uncertainty in cost estimation: cost growth from feasibility to construction typically 30 to 80 percent for water treatment projects due to ground conditions, planning, and regulatory changes; quantitative risk assessment (QRA) using Monte Carlo simulation (Palisade @Risk, Oracle Crystal Ball) provides P50 (50th percentile), P80, and P90 project cost estimates; contingency set at P80 minus P50 for project management contingency; optimism bias uplift (OB) applied per HM Treasury guidance (standard infrastructure projects: OB 44 percent on capital cost at business case stage).
Frequently Asked Questions
What does a water treatment feasibility study include?
A water treatment feasibility study for a new or upgraded treatment works typically includes: (1) Design basis: raw water quality data (12+ months monitoring: turbidity, colour, TOC/DOC, THM formation potential, microbiological quality including Cryptosporidium oocyst count, pesticides, metals); population equivalent (PE) served; design flow (maximum day demand, peak hour demand, average daily demand); required treated water quality (DWI consent conditions; Environmental Permit for wastewater). (2) Options identification and screening: list of applicable treatment technologies matched to raw water quality (coagulation/filtration for turbid surface water; membrane filtration for cryptosporidium-affected sources; GAC for organics; UV/ozone for disinfection by-product control; RO for high-TDS groundwater); land area requirements; constraint screening (planning zone, flood risk, access). (3) Multi-criteria analysis: technical feasibility (pilot data availability; technology maturity TRL 7 to 9 for low-risk selection; vendor market strength); economic (capital cost, operating cost, whole-life cost); environmental (carbon footprint, chemical use, sludge generation, residuals disposal); social and community acceptance; programme (design, planning, procurement, and construction duration). (4) Preliminary design of shortlisted options: process flowsheet; site layout; preliminary sizing of key tanks, vessels, and pipes; equipment schedule; electrical load estimate; chemical consumption estimate. (5) Cost estimate: AACE Class 4 (feasibility grade, plus 50/minus 30 percent); capital cost broken down by discipline (civil, M&E, I&C, commissioning); operating cost (energy, chemicals, sludge, staffing); whole-life cost at 3.5 percent real discount rate over 25 to 30 year asset life. (6) Risk register: key risks to cost, programme, and performance; risk-adjusted cost estimate.
How long does a water infrastructure feasibility study take?
Water infrastructure feasibility study timescales depend on the project complexity, data availability, and stakeholder requirements: Simple treatment upgrade (single process addition, no planning): 3 to 6 months (desk study and optioneering: 1 to 2 months; outline design and costing: 1 to 2 months; report and review: 1 month). Complex new treatment works (new site, multiple process trains, DWI/EA approval): 9 to 18 months (site investigation: 3 to 6 months; raw water quality monitoring: 12 months minimum for seasonal variation; treatability study (bench-scale): 3 to 6 months; UV validation pilot (if required): 6 to 12 months; optioneering: 2 to 3 months; outline design: 3 to 4 months). WRMP water resources option feasibility: individual option feasibility within a WRMP: typically 12 to 24 months at Short List Assessment (SLA) stage; detailed feasibility (Preferred Programme Assessment, PPA): 18 to 36 months; RAPID (Regulators Alliance for Progressing Infrastructure Development) programme for multi-company strategic options: 3 to 7 years from RAPID pre-submission to financial close. Parallel activities to compress programme: simultaneous site investigation and preliminary optioneering; bench-scale treatability while long-list options being screened; early pre-application engagement with EA and DWI. UK EA planning consents (Water Framework Directive abstraction licence): typically 12 to 18 months for major new abstraction licence application; environmental impact assessment adds 6 to 12 months.
What is a Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP)?
A Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) is a statutory long-term plan (25-year horizon, updated every 5 years) that each water company in England and Wales must produce under the Water Industry Act 1991 (as amended by Water Act 2003 and guidance under the Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007 and updated by Defra and the Environment Agency). A WRMP sets out how the water company will maintain a secure and reliable water supply to all customers over the 25-year planning period, taking into account: demand growth (population and household growth; non-household demand); demand management (leakage reduction targets; metering strategy; water efficiency; per capita consumption); supply change (climate change impact on yield; environmental flow requirements on licences; abstraction licence reductions under EA CAMS/WFD headroom requirements); drought resilience (target levels of service (LOS): 99.9 percent of years without restrictions; 1-in-200-year drought without hosepipe bans; specific LOS metrics by company); supply development options (demand management; new sources; reuse; storage; transfers). Process: company produces draft WRMP; public consultation (minimum 12 weeks); statutory consultee responses (EA, Natural England, Consumer Council for Water, Defra); EA and Ofwat review for consistency with WFD and WINEP; company publishes final WRMP. WRMP24 (covering 2025 to 2050) was published by all English and Welsh water companies in 2024; major themes: hosepipe ban reduction; PFAS removal investment; treated wastewater reuse; potential new reservoir (Severn-Thames transfer corridor).
How are water project costs estimated at feasibility stage?
Water project capital cost estimation at feasibility stage follows the AACE International Classification system (Class 4 estimate, feasibility grade, accuracy plus 50 percent / minus 30 percent): Methods: (1) Analogous (top-down): compare with recently completed similar projects; apply scaling factor for capacity (cost scales approximately as Q^0.6 to Q^0.7 for process plants; Q^0.4 to Q^0.5 for civil structures); adjust for location (BCIS Regional Location Factor; London typically 1.10 to 1.20 x UK average; rural Scotland 0.90 to 0.95 x UK average), time (BCIS TPI, Tender Price Index), and specification differences; (2) Parametric (unit rate): cost per unit of capacity (e.g. GBP/m3.day for drinking water treatment; GBP/PE for STW; GBP/km for pipeline); published benchmarks: EA Infrastructure Cost Estimates (ICE) database; Spon's Civil Engineering Price Book (annual Spon's publication); Mott MacDonald/Stantec/Jacobs internal benchmarks; examples: BWRO treatment works GBP 200 to 600/m3.day capacity; conventional drinking water treatment GBP 300 to 900/m3.day; STW activated sludge GBP 400 to 1,500/PE; distribution main DN100 to DN300 GBP 150 to 500/m; (3) Elemental (bottom-up): for AACE Class 3+ estimates; quantity take-off from preliminary drawings; rates from Spon's or internal rate books; breakdown by discipline (civil earthworks, concrete, structural steel, pipework, M&E equipment, I&C, commissioning); (4) Risk-adjusted cost: base estimate at P50; QRA (Monte Carlo) generates cost distribution; P80 cost recommended for business case contingency; OB (optimism bias) per HM Treasury: standard infrastructure +44 percent at OBC stage, reducing as project matures. Whole-life cost adds: operating cost (energy, chemicals, staffing, sludge disposal); maintenance (planned preventive maintenance: 1 to 2 percent of capital per year for M&E; 0.5 to 1 percent for civil); periodic refurbishment; discount rate 3.5 percent real (HM Treasury Green Book) for public projects; water company WACC for regulatory submissions.
A water company in the East of England needed to evaluate five supply-demand balance options for a projected 85 Ml/day shortfall by 2040 identified in WRMP24. Options ranged from demand management and leakage reduction to a new 60 Ml/day SWRO desalination plant on the Norfolk coast. The feasibility had to produce a Class 4 cost estimate and multi-criteria analysis suitable for inclusion in the PR24 business plan submission.
Stantec were engaged to lead a 12-month feasibility study. Raw water quality was characterised at 4 candidate abstraction points over 18 months. Bench-scale treatability tests for PFAS removal (GAC and anion exchange) were run at Cranfield. AACE Class 4 costs were estimated using EA ICE database benchmarks, scaled by BCIS regional factors and a 2024 BCIS TPI uplift. A quantitative risk assessment (Monte Carlo) was used to generate P50 and P80 project cost estimates for each option.
The MCA identified a combined demand management (25 Ml/day saving) plus BWRO at a brackish inland aquifer (40 Ml/day) as the preferred programme with a P50 capital cost of GBP 68 million and P80 of GBP 89 million, compared to the SWRO option at P50 GBP 142 million. The feasibility report was accepted by Ofwat as supporting evidence for the AMP8 business plan submission. The RAPID pre-submission for the BWRO scheme was initiated in parallel with the Ofwat submission.
Questions to Ask Shortlisted Providers
- 1
What AACE cost estimation class are you targeting at each stage gate and what data collection is needed to progress from Class 4 to Class 3 accuracy?
An Ofwat business plan submission needs Class 4 at Long List and Class 3 at Short List; understanding the data requirements at each gate prevents underinvestment in ground investigation and treatability studies that later forces a re-run of the cost estimate.
- 2
How are optimism bias and systemic risk treated in your cost model and are you applying HM Treasury Green Book or Ofwat business plan guidance?
Ofwat's PR24 guidance requires optimism bias disclosure; under-disclosure of OB results in a business plan submission that Ofwat challenges or reprices at Final Determination, creating a funding gap for the capital programme.
- 3
What WRMP24 demand scenario (central, high, low) have you used as the design basis and how sensitive is the option ranking to that demand assumption?
The preferred option can change if demand growth is 20 percent lower than the central scenario; a sensitivity analysis must be part of the feasibility deliverable to demonstrate that the preferred option is robust.
- 4
How will you incorporate the EA's CAMS abstraction sustainability headroom assessment and any RSA licence reduction risk into the supply yield estimates?
EA is actively reducing abstraction licences in over-stressed catchments; any yield assumption that does not account for RSA risk may overstate supply and create a spurious supply-demand balance.
- 5
What programme timeline from feasibility to operational delivery have you assumed and does it include realistic RAPID, planning, EIA, and EA licence timescales?
Strategic water resource options routinely take 10 to 15 years from feasibility to water in supply; a programme that assumes 7 years will be rejected by Ofwat reviewers with knowledge of RAPID's historical delivery timescales.
What Drives Cost in This Category
A 12-month raw water quality monitoring programme at multiple candidate abstraction points costs GBP 80,000 to 200,000 in sampling and analysis; omitting this step forces assumption-based design that results in Class 4 accuracy widening to plus 100 percent in the worst case.
Progressing from a Class 4 feasibility estimate (12 weeks, GBP 80,000 to 200,000 consultant fee) to a Class 2 control estimate (RIBA Stage 3 design, 6 to 12 months, GBP 400,000 to 1,200,000 consultant fee) reduces cost uncertainty from plus 50 percent to plus 20 percent, often saving multiples of the additional fee in contractor contingency at tender.
A Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP, DCO consent for strategic water resources) adds 3 to 5 years to programme compared to local planning (Town and Country Planning Act 1990); the choice of consent route determines whether a feasibility study is sized for a 7-year or a 12-year delivery programme, fundamentally changing the whole-life cost.
MCA weighting of environmental vs economic criteria is politically sensitive for water companies; if the stakeholder engagement process (minimum 12-week consultation for WRMP) produces a different weighting preference from the consultant's assumed values, the preferred option can change and the feasibility study must be substantially reworked.
Key Regulations & Standards
Water companies must publish a 25-year WRMP every 5 years; feasibility studies supporting WRMP24 must conform to the EA's Revised Draft WRMP Guidelines (2022) including the supply-demand balance methodology, demand management hierarchy, and option assessment framework.
Strategic water resource options requiring multi-company coordination (new reservoirs, inter-regional transfers) are assessed through the RAPID joint process of Ofwat, EA, and NRW; RAPID pre-submission must include a feasibility study meeting RAPID's technical evidence standards before gate approval to proceed to development consent.
Feasibility cost-benefit analysis for publicly funded water infrastructure must apply the HM Treasury Green Book discount rate (3.5 percent real) and optimism bias uplifts (standard infrastructure: 44 percent on capital cost at OBC stage); Ofwat accepts Green Book methodology for AMP8 business plan economic analysis.
New abstraction licences for WRMP supply options must demonstrate compatibility with WFD Article 4 (no deterioration in ecological status) and the EA's CAMS sustainability assessment; the EA's Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) programme is actively reducing existing licences in over-abstracted catchments, which must be reflected in supply yield assumptions.










