Manipulated feasibility and appraisal (economic, environmental & social, technical)
Feasibility and appraisal results are distorted to facilitate decision approval, concealing risks and inflating expected benefits.
Red Flags & Indicators
- Appraisal relies on selective assumptions, with limited sensitivity testing or independent challenge.
- Project needs and demand are not supported by verifiable evidence and credible baselines.
- Project benefits are inflated to provide justification for project approval.
- Key cost drivers are understated or omitted (lifecycle costs, operations & maintenance costs, contingencies and safeguards).
- Adverse environmental or social impacts are understated or omitted.
- Revisions to project assumptions are handled informally, with weak version control and accountability for changes.
Stakeholder Guidance
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes pressure to turn a blind eye to unverifiable project assumptions; liability for misrepresentation of key assumptions (such as enviromental and social impacts); flawed baselines drive later variations, overruns and higher dispute risk; and reputational exposure.
Decision Point
Before early engagement and bid/no‑bid decision, verify whether feasibility and appraisal are based on documented assumptions, alternatives, and evidence.
Mitigation Actions
• Document gaps and data limitations and other issues related to poor and inconsistent feasibility and appraisal documentation
• Use internal compliance escalation processes and whistleblower channels, where available, to flag internally any pressure to turn a blind eye to unrealistic assumptions or omitted or understated environmental and social impacts
• Decline to endorse unsupported appraisal documentation and document the reasons
• Request independent review for material project assumptions (cost, demand, benefits, impacts) and maintain version control with an auditable change log for revisions
Mitigation Resources
Evaluate the assumptions, costs, benefits, and scenarios underpinning feasibility and appraisal records; challenge the appraisal where weak analysis, narrowed alternatives, omitted environmental & social impacts, or unsupported claims conceal risks or overstate expected benefits.
Appraisal and cost-estimate assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/appraisal-and-cost-estimate-assurance/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes investment case built on inflated benefits and understated costs; hidden environmental and social risks; mispriced returns; higher claims and renegotiation risk; and reputational risk.
Decision Point
At financing and investment committee stage and before signing sheet commitments and committing resources, verify whether project assumptions and risks are validated through a robust appraisal process, and require independent verification of assumptions and downside impacts if appraisal seems unreliable. Proceed only if the appraisal is evidence-based and independently reviewed; otherwise pause/exit.
Mitigation Actions
• Condition further engagement on full disclosure of appraisal documentation, evidence baselines, key assumptions and revisions
• Include covenants requiring re-appraisal if scope, cost, schedule, demand or other key assumption changes materially
• Include exit triggers when covenants are breached and disclosures remain incomplete
Mitigation Resources
Evaluate the assumptions, costs, benefits, and scenarios underpinning feasibility and appraisal records; challenge the appraisal where weak analysis, incomplete options appraisal, omitted environmental and social risks, or unsupported assumptions conceal risks or overstate expected benefits.
Appraisal and cost-estimate assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/appraisal-and-cost-estimate-assurance/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes project approval based on manipulated evidence; funding gaps due to underestimated costs; higher risk of scope change and budget renegotiation; increased risk of disputes; and loss of public trust.
Decision Point
Before approving a feasibility analysis, verify whether the assumptions and risks are validated through a robust appraisal process, and require rework or peer review if assumptions and downside impacts seems unreliable.
Mitigation Actions
• Publish key assumptions and appraisal documentation as a transparency rule
• Adopt appraisal with mandatory feasibility analysis prior to project approval and justification in cases where feasibility requirements are exempted
• Adopt appraisal with independent review for high‑value, high-impact projects
• Commission independent review when appraisal documentation is weak or contested
• Document reasons for selecting the preferred option and rejecting credible lower-cost alternatives
• Maintain a complete appraisal file with version control and an auditable change log
Mitigation Resources
Evaluate the assumptions, costs, benefits, and scenarios underpinning feasibility and appraisal records; benchmark and challenge the appraisal where risks are understated, alternatives are narrowed, or expected benefits are overstated.
Appraisal and cost-estimate assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/appraisal-and-cost-estimate-assurance/Apply stage-gate reviews, readiness checks, and documented approval logs before approving feasibility and appraisal records; return the case for further work where key risks are omitted, evidence is incomplete, or value-for-money is weak.
Stage-gate governance and independent assurance — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/stage-gate-governance-and-independent-assurance/Publish and maintain public access to feasibility and appraisal records, including key results, assumptions, sensitivity tests, reasons for selecting the preferred option, and reasons for material changes, with only lawful redactions.
Transparency and data disclosure standards — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/transparency-and-data-disclosure-standards/Failure Cases
Good Practices
Stakeholder Exposure
Exposure includes downplayed land, resettlement, and enviromental and social impacts; restricted access to baseline and project assumption information; limited ability to contest assumptions; and unmitigated community harm.
Decision Point
During the budget allocation cycle and/or pipeline publication, request disclosure of appraisal documentation. Decide whether to (a) escalate through oversight channels, or (b) monitor while gathering evidence safely.
Mitigation Actions
• Use access to information to request disclosure of scope changes, cost and schedule revisions
• Advocate for disclosure of project information based on recognised infrastructure data standards such as the OC4IDS
• Engage oversight bodies to raise credible concerns about unreliable and incomplete appraisal documentation (use safe, confidential reporting and anonymisation where retaliation risk is material)
• Mobilise communities affected by inadequate project delivery to raise concerns about poor project planning
Mitigation Resources
Request access to non-public feasibility and appraisal records, such as internal review comments, revised assumptions, sensitivity tests, alternatives analysis, or records explaining changes to risk or benefit estimates, so concealed risks, inflated benefits, or unexplained revisions can be examined and raised through oversight channels.
Access-to-information and demand-side transparency — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/access-to-information-and-demand-side-transparency/Review publicly disclosed feasibility and appraisal records at an early stage; identify disclosure gaps, omitted risks, missing sensitivity tests, narrowed alternatives, or unexplained revisions, and raise concerns about non-disclosure with an oversight body.
Transparency and data disclosure standards — https://toolbox.infrastructuretransparency.org/resource/transparency-and-data-disclosure-standards/