Can AI revolutionize EPC?

A very brief word before we start the show, we've got a survey for listeners of Catalyst and Open Circuit, and we would be so grateful if you could take a few moments to fill it out. As our audience continues to expand, it's an opportunity to understand how and why you listen to our shows, and it helps us continue bringing relevant content on the tech and markets you care about in clean energy.

If you fill it out, you'll get a chance to win a$100 gift card from Amazon, and you can find it at latitudemedia.com slash survey or just click the survey link in the show notes. Thank you so much. Latitude Media, covering the new. Energy transition. I'm Shale Khan, and this is Catalyst. As a third party contractor, your incentive is really we only make money when the project costs more and takes longer. So yeah, high level what's broken is is it's the incentive struck.

Coming up, is there a better way using modern technology to build big capital projects? Catalyst is supported by Fishtank PR, an award-winning PR firm focused on climate and energy tech, renewables, and sustainability. Fishtank is known for generating prominent and effective media coverage for the brands they work with.

If you want a PR partner that's thoughtful, shoots straight, and gets results, you'll like Fishtank PR. To learn more about Fishtank's approach, visit fishtankpr.com. That's f I-s-c-h fishtankpr.com. When utilities need flexible capacity they can count on, they turn to energy hubs. Energy Hub works with more than 170 utilities, coordinating over 2.5 million devices to manage 3.4 gigawatts of flexibility built for the moments when utilities can't afford uncertainty.

Energy Hub builds and operates virtual power plants that utilities actually stake their grid planning on, coordinating EVs, batteries, thermostats, and more through a single platform built for utility scale, predictive, verifiable, and designed to perform when it counts. Learn more at energyhub.com. I'm Shale Kahn. I lead the early stage venture strategy at Energy Impact Partners. Welcome.

All right, so here's a cycle that I have seen play out many, many times. Uh developer X of Project Y wants to go build a big new project. And somewhere in the development process, they engage an EPC, EPC being an engineering, procurement, and construction firm. There are many of them, many of them are very, very large, uh, and they're kind of ubiquitous if you're going to build a big capital project.

They engage the EPC. And then there's like a fairly painful process from there on where it's slower than they want it to be. They have to go through multiple cycles of iteration. There's value engineering. The cost comes in higher than they expect. And then at the end of the day, there are a bunch of change orders anyway. And there are cost overruns, there are time overruns. It's not necessarily the fault of the EPC, right? Lots of things can happen in the world.

But the process of actually getting big projects constructed is notoriously hard. And some folks have been wondering whether there is a way to leverage modern technology, AI included, to do it better. Certainly that is the opinion of Alex Modon, who is our guest today. Alex is the CEO and co-founder of Unlimited Industries, which is a startup that that reasonably unstealthed to basically be a modern EPC. They're trying to start from scratch.

To build a company that will do engineering, procurement, and construction with new technology, with a different business model to try to get projects built faster, more on budget, potentially cheaper.

It's an interesting question and it applies to everything from data centers to power generation projects, battery storage projects, new chemical plants, anything that we might build that's a big capital project. So it's relevant to basically everything else that we talk about here. Anyway, here's Al. Alex, welcome. Hello, thanks for having me.

Thanks for being here. Let's talk about EPC, Engineering, Procurement, Construction. Uh you founded a company based on the premise that it could be done better. So I want to start with what's what's wrong with it. Today, as you've observed EPCs and how they work, like fundamentally, what is the problem that you see? Ja, ähm. Well i it might be first contextualizing like the what is EPC and where does it play in the value chain. So um to start this, let's just just imagine we're gonna build um

I don't know, let's just say a data center project. Um so if we want to go build a data center project as an owner of a a project or a developer of a project, the first thing that we do is um we kind of find the land and we contract that and we start to figure out what permits we need. We figure out what power we need to buy. And then um

You know, you typically go find an off taker or some sort of tenant for that uh for that actual data center project or again, whatever the product is that comes out of the facility. And the last like big contract that you're trying to do is go find the third party that's going to design and build the thing.

Uh EPC, engineering procurement, construction is basically the vertically integrated or all three of the kind of design, manage the supply chain, actually manage the build of the project, all three of those in one contractor.

And they're for for for all intents and purposes, they are the people who design and build the thing. Uh that that E P C piece. And so um I I think when when I got into it, uh I was actually really excited the first time we we uh went to go work with an EPC, um thinking that there's gonna be all these different kind of uh disciplines and institutional knowledge under one shingle.

I think the biggest thing that's challenged with the industry today is that the incentives between the developer, um, the person who actually wants to build the thing better, faster, cheaper, or some sort of metric like that, versus the third party, um The the the incentives are so fundamentally misaligned because of how these contracts get produced. And so you'll either have, you know, the b vast majority of these contracts have some element of cost plus.

where, you know, we'll we'll say, you know, we'll give some sort of guidance about how much the project's gonna cost. But as a third party contractor, your incentive is really we only make money when the project costs more and takes longer. Um, or there's sometimes these contracts that run on a fixed firm basis where uh that third party will actually say, hey, we'll we'll build it for this much, but they define the contract. So tightly.

that um inevitably what happens is when when you learn something through the design process or um when things change, which inevitably they always do, um, you get issued these like massive change orders. And um that's at that point, that's that's where that kind of third party EPC typically makes all their margin. Um, just because you're you're you're already working together and you can't really easily leave.

So um yeah, high level what's broken is is it's the incentive structure. The the incentives between that that third party or the uh the actual developer who wants to build better, faster, cheaper, and the third party who's in control of making all the decisions about what gets designed and what actually gets built.

If I'm being charitable to EPCs and you know, and I ask the question of like why is it cost plus typically or fixed firm, but where change orders are the norm, um I would imagine in part it is because there's The one, there's this like time lag, right? Like they're signing the contract on day one, but they're actually procuring the commodity materials six months later, a year later, eighteen months later, whatever it might be.

Those prices are volatile. They would have to hedge them every single time if they weren't going to do that. Like the and not to mention. labor availability, labor costs and all this other stuff. So is it because they just can't wear that kind of a risk, the like time risk? Or is your experience that there's a different reason why it ended up being Cost plus or fixed firm with all sorts of change orders.

No, it's I mean definitely to Steelman. It's it it's because it's ultra complex to build these projects. There is hundreds of people that'll be involved in how the thing gets designed, um, that manages the entire supply chain to get it built and then manages all the like boots on the ground of the project that's actually doing the building. So there is tons of complexity.

And the reason that these contracts are structured in this um inherently flexible way is because um it's really hard to know up front how much exactly is the thing gonna cost. So um yeah, it's I mean it it it certainly has like evolved this way because when you when you think about these projects and I mean the small version of these are like a hundred million dollars. The the you know, the more normal version of these is many hundreds of millions and then the

you know, the bigger ones are in the certainly in the in the uh media billions of s of of of costs. So, um, because you have all that risk, y y the contracts effectively are this this big like, you know, risk mitigation strategy. And um And that that the easy way for the EPC not to take any risk is just to say we're gonna get a margin on top of what it costs us to build the thing. But the the problem is, um

That that there's no there's no motivation then to like make the thing cost less. If anything, there's a a motivation the other way to make it cost more.

Yeah, you mentioned there's a a lot of people and a lot of uncertainty. I mean, I guess one thing I one way I think about it is that there's a spectrum of different types of projects. On one end of the spectrum is a thing that looks the same every time you build it, more or less. I mean, maybe a version of this would be.

I don't know, utility scale battery projects or utility scale solar or something like that. Where like, you know, we've built hundreds of them. They generally look the same wherever you go. And you would imagine that on those types of projects, it would be pretty well known. Maybe there's uh some commodity risk, maybe there's some labor risk, but like broadly speaking, the designs are gonna be similar.

And the experience is high. And then on the other end of the spectrum, there's like a first-of-a-kind thing that's never been built before. And there obviously your error bars on the cost and the time, the labor, and all that is going to be highest. Do you and then there's a bunch of stuff in between? I imagine data centers are in between, actually, because in some ways they look the same. There's like a powered shell, the shell is a building.

But then inside the data center, right, like there's all sorts of innovation. Like is this one liquid cool? Is this one using which NVIDIA chips is it using? How is it designed? There's so much innovation in that space that it's changing all the time. Um Which also changes the facility too, right? Like like it's the these changes trickle out for sure. Right.

So I guess as you think about this like um the incentive structure being misaligned, do you view it as being more misaligned on the this I guess relatively speaking, easier stuff to build? Because there you should be able to have high level of certainty on what the cost should be a priori, or is it more misaligned on the on the esoteric stuff because the error bars are even higher and so the risk aversion of the EPC leads them to like way overprice, for example.

Yeah, no, I mean definitely, definitely it's uh like the contingencies or or um the egregiousness of this like uh cost mis misalignment uh i is certainly true with the the more custom the project it gets. So the first of a kinds are a great example of that. Or um, you know, like you even mentioned, data centers that are shifting in their requirements, of course, have um more and more more of this baked in. It's basically just correlated to risk. Like how much risk is there in this?

um solar has less and less risk as we deploy more and more the exact same way. Same thing with utility storage. Um but I do think that uh like where you see so you you definitely get um misaligned contracts or misaligned incentives which which kind of balloon costs. And that is the the kind of status quo for how you contract these things anyways. Um but the other other thing that kind of falls into this is how Projects broadly are approached.

And so if you think about how we build products, like we have a metric for it, right? We we say, hey, we're gonna make this widget, it's gonna come out of a factory, um, we have some sort of cost per widget metric, and that that allows us to kind of approach these projects with this continuous improvement type approach. Um

And drive costs down. That's like our learning rate. I think arguably like that's why solar has has fallen so aggressively, is because we we keep kind of making or at least I should say uh the module costs, which is even different than this is maybe a s a side tangent, but it's like different than the actual install cost.

Yeah. Well it's actually the pr the problem with solar is that the the module costs have fallen much faster than the installed costs have, right? Like we haven't solved it on the construction and and all the other commodity materials and stuff. Yeah. Yeah. And that's because all progress happens with this like, you know, highly iterative process and this like continue improvement process that we get out of manufacturing a thing.

Um, but when we move into projects world, everything's a snowflake. It's like, you know, everything's N of one. Even a project that we're building, you know, we built a lot of refineries. It that next refinery that we build is still an N of one project. And

Um, because it's approached in that way, you don't really get any sort of benefits of learning through that process. And um, you know, by definition, each project's gonna be unique. It's a different piece of land. Um, but uh Yeah, and and again, maybe this is a a a a a tangent, but um

That's like another big problem in the industry is everything's done from scratch. So even if you're gonna go design a new um, you know, a slightly different data center or solar project or something else of that sort. Every tweak or change that you make effectively reintroduces the entire redesign of the process. And so yes, there's some stuff that gets lifted, but the overall amount of uh work that happens is not the kind of delta of the change. It is like a significant re-haul of work.

Um and it keeps it just keeps us from like learning and iterating to improve uh how something gets designed, not just in in terms of saving the engineering costs, which is actually a pretty small piece of the cost anyways. But actually like um kind of uh having a better design that improves the overall cost or performance of the the facility.

I guess one thing I wonder is Okay, so let's take EPC, right? Like in engineering, procurement, and construction. Just taking it at the simplest base layer of what the work entails. Let's just say you could dramatically improve because what you're describing is like, um, the learning I think I guess maybe is on on all three, but predominantly on like engineering. Can you design this thing?

So that it's fast and easy to design and is definitely gonna work up front. My guess is that in most of these big capital projects, the E out of EPC is the smallest slice of the pie in terms of total cost. And like the the bulk of the cost probably comes from a combination of procurement, the actual physical materials, much of which are gonna be like steel and cement and aluminum and, you know, commodities that that have prices that vary.

And then construction, which is sort of a function, it's an outcropping of of how the engineering occurs, but certainly is also just driven by um by construction process and and labor and so on. So as you think about like where is there an opportunity to deliver cost reduction and also cost certainty, like how much of it is the E versus the P versus the C?

Yeah, totally. Okay. So those are two separate things, right? Like, so let's say um cost certainty versus like an overall reduction in cost. Um, on the certainty side, Uh everything it's not. really kind of planned out or teased out in the engineering portion. Right. And so generally again, life cycle of these projects are um, you know, you start with some conceptual design, you understand maybe plus or minus 50% how much the thing's going to cost.

Um, then for the most part you dig into this like front end engineering design and you will get to totally changes per project, but say you get to like plus or minus 10% of cost. And that gives you enough confidence to go to a lender, an actual bank, and say, Hey, let's underwrite this project. We think you're gonna get the IRR you need. Um, and then we move forward.

But in the in the vast majority of projects, when you go to final investment decision and you have plus or minus 10% estimates, you're only maybe 30% of the way through your engineering. Seventy percent you still have to go do. And you just it doesn't make sense to do it up front because it takes a lot of time and it costs a lot of money and it's a lot easier to finance that um with the actual lender's money rather than the development capital.

So um the the certainty that you have going into a project before you actually take the money from the bank to go build it is actually pretty low. Like there's so much more work to go do. And you just don't do it because there's a high marginal cost of the engineering. So uh one way that you really reduce um all the risk, if you will, or all this like uncertainty from how the project's gonna work, is if you could instead just take these projects further through the design process so that

Um, by the time you're, you know, you're doing your your earthworks or you're moving some sort of ground, you you're actually a hundred percent done. You have your issued for construction package, um, which doesn't happen today. And so there's there's that big piece on like how do you remove uncertainty? Um, how you remove costs? I mean, yeah, you're totally right. The engineering cost is

Anywhere from like three to ten percent or fifteen percent of the project cost. So it's not a huge lever in itself. But i if you think about the way these projects are designed today, because again, such a high marginal cost to engineering,

What you end up doing is you only really design something one pass through. There's no sort of iteration. There's no optimization of design. And um That leads you to a spot where uh you kind of make early decisions, you freeze those design decisions, you kind of do the next stage gate of design of your design process. And you eventually get stuck in these like very like low local optimums rather than ever understanding what the global optimum of that design process is.

So um yeah, I mean like I can get more into how we approach this problem, but um the there's huge gains and opportunities to use the E to rapidly reduce the P and the C. Are you tired of overpaying for big name PR firms but not really knowing what they're delivering? Is your comms team wasting time reviewing lengthy messaging briefs and dex?

Instead of engaging journalists or producing content, are you wondering why your competitors are getting press and you aren't? Fishtink PR is an award winning climate and energy tech, renewables and sustainability focused PR firm

Dedicated to elevating the work of both early stage and established companies. Whether you need to position yourself as a thought leader in between project announcements or translate complex ideas and technologies into tangible, compelling stories that resonate with the media, Fishtank can help. Check out fishtankpr.com. That's f-i-s-c-h fishtankpr.com.

Virtual power plants are becoming a reliable way for utilities to manage capacity, but enrolling devices is just the start. What really matters is confidence, knowing those resources will perform when dispatched. And being able to prove it from the control room to the living room. Energy Hub's platform handles the full picture, from near real-time forecasting, locational dispatch, and the kind of rigorous verification that holds up when regulators, grid operators, or leadership ask

Did it deliver? Easy enrollment creates momentum. Proven performance builds trust. That's why more than 170 utilities rely on EnergyHub to manage over 2.5 million devices, delivering 3.4 gigawatts of flexible capacity. See what that looks like at energyhub.com.

Okay. Let's talk about how to use technology, which is I think what you're alluding to here, right? Like this is an area where my suspicion is generally it's not the first category of AI adoption, or at least it hasn't been historically, where do you see the biggest opportunity? Like where are the step function improvements that one can achieve by leveraging modern technology, be it AI or something else? Yeah, um...

So uh w we have built a lot of technology to help accelerate that pre-construction phase. So this is basically the E in a lot of the procurement management side of things. And um we have a software and uh kind of like an AI native version of this that helps accelerate the chemical design, mechanical, electrical, civil, structural um controls. And in doing that, we basically are building a platform that allows us to remove that risk, but at a very, very low marginal cost.

So that helps you accelerate through the design process, not just saving time, but exploring a much wider search base and getting to much greater levels of definition before you actually have to freeze designs. Um and that has a big impact to the to previous point, right? It's just like removing uncertainty, um, you know, reducing costs from through through optimization.

Can you go a little deeper on that? Like, what does that actually mean to reduce uncertainty using software? Like, what are you actually doing? Ja, um... It's just i i you know, if you start a project today at like zero, you know, it's like completely uncertain, right? Um and as you start specifying or defining the um bringing definition to that project, which is the process of engineering it, you start to see

more you you start to remove risk, right? You say, hey, you know, we can actually size a pump that will solve that, you know, moving a fluid from from point A to point B. Or um a, you know, actually we can design a tank like this to hold this amount of volume.

And once you start providing that level of definition, you you remove a lot of the kind of ambiguity. But there's still tons and tons that goes into, you know, the thousands of of documents that you'll you'll kind of generate to design a plant fully. Um So th this is what we kind of built. Like it it is a a um a a platform that our engineers use. I think the important distinction here is this is not like a a software technology that we sell. It's like we use this as an internal tool ourselves.

Um, so our engineers have this uh kind of AI platform that has all of their data in one place, all the kind of requirements about the project, all of the um potential vendors that could be used. And they use it to basically accelerate that design process really significantly. We haven't like redefined how you're engineering these projects.

um, we've uh kind of augmented like significantly augmented the people that are doing that work so that they're able to just with the same amount of time um and capital, they're able to define way more and and provide way more um kind of

engineering definition as as well as like time to optimize those designs. So you can remove um kind of suboptimal designs Can you articulate a little bit like what is distinct about this from the the, you know, that EPCs have been using engineering software that is super mature for For a long time, maybe that's the problem. But like what's distinct about what you just described from what you could just get off the shelf to design a project?

Most of the software in this industry really hasn't hasn't changed much in the last like maybe twenty years. Um and I again kind of always come back to the incentive structure. There's no real incentive structure for an EPC to want better software. It's the same reason your law firm doesn't necessarily want like AI software to help them accelerate, you know, and reduce their billables.

So the way these softwares work now is that there's a bunch of kind of distributed software solutions or um or d maybe decentralized solutions. So you'll have a CAD tool that you use to actually like do the designs. You'll do almost all of your kind of rough engineering or hand calcs in Excel. Um, you'll use dedicated simulation software for some sort of fluid design or structural analysis or whatever that might be.

And then um and then you use another another tool to like review those those PDFs, you know, uh uh with a tool to put red lines on them and go through design cycles and then push to drafters and um And then other tools to manage, you know, how do you reach out to your vendors. And anyways, there there there's all these different solutions that uh software solutions that you're using in order to um like kind of quote unquote like do engineering.

And um what what we built uh kind of from day one was just a modern version of this software. So uh we put all those different disparate tools into one underlying platform. And we gave modern software to them, which is like, you know, automatically doing version control and collaboration and um uh everything that you would expect out of just like a a a modern tool. And what what that allows us to do is not just kind of have

much more streamlined workflows, but it allows us to kind of build AI in as a core primitive to the solution. So now sometimes our engineers will do some sort of work manually within one of our softwares, but often they will dedicate a or they kind of delegate a task. To an AI that knows how to use all those tools in our software so that it can do that design task and then surface that back to the engineer who delegated it.

So it's um at least in in significant part, it's like integration of a bunch of what otherwise are kind of disparate workflows to allow for faster iteration and more automated iteration. Like you may you do a change somewhere in one piece of software. Right now you'd have to go to another piece of software, like make the change in that software, see how it changes the other thing.

do that over and over again. So it's like it's like building everything into a single comprehensive suite, basically. Yeah, totally. There's like one underlying data model. There's not, you know, the same piece of data that shows up in ten different softwares.

And that's that's really helpful, not just again for streamlining your own workflows, but it's it's so that an AI can do it and it doesn't have to like manage all these different tools and interfaces that, you know, the same information is repeated but out of date and um Or edited by the wrong person who didn't have permission or something of that sort.

When you say AI in this context, what do you what do you mean? Like, is it LLM type AI where you're like, I want to be able to in my single pane of glass, be able to ask, you know, uh Like what would happen if I changed all the screws in this entire project from X to Y or something like that? Like is it L L M AI? Is it what what is the AI? Yeah. Enterprise software for sure, but doesn't us in and like there's a big data component to it, but it's not inherently AI.

Yeah, no, it's like an exact use case, the one that you gave that um w you know, you would do. So so we'll like record all our meetings. Um, and that meeting you're having with a handful of different disciplines of engineers or people who understand the commercial, the agreement. And what that'll trigger uh through that recording is like a bunch of tasks for AIs to go do.

And it's uh us you just basically mentioned a trade there, right? It's like what if we had, I don't know, one type of material over another type of material, one type of conveyance over another type of conveyance for this project to this material. RAI will go explore that different design path.

And that's a trade that you would give to an engineer. And you'd say, Hey, go spend a week, like assess the trade-off between using um, you know, belt conveyance or pneumatic conveyance for some sort of material handling problem. And then tell me back what what do we feel like is the right um kind of total cost of ownership trade. And it'll just explore that. And so that's an LLM who's doing a lot of that work.

And importantly, you're not just kind of asking a chat GPT or something of the sort to go explore that and produce something, which it it'll do. Um and honestly, it'll do in a pretty impressive way. Um, but it's it's uh the way that we built it is that it's grounded both inside of our inside of the data for the project, because it has all that in one place, and then inside of the tools that we've fed it.

So it knows how to use um a, you know, how to downselect actual vendors or how to um uh read spec sheets that we fed it or how to uh use simulation software that we fed it in order to derive these answers. What did you mention data centers and I I think you you guys put that in as one of the categories you're most interested in in in uh in your announcement when you guys unveiled

Is that because we're building a lot of data centers? Or is that because there's like something specific to data centers and data center construction and engineering that makes it especially attractive here? Or is there something else that you would describe as like the The perfect prototypical use case for this in the early days is X.

So uh these projects have a you know a handful of different a handful of different reasons of why you would apply this technology. Um in the data center use case specifically. Speed is really an important um lever for them. And so you can take, you know, instead of the design portion taking, call it six to nine months of your critical path.

uh we can massively collapse that period of time. And that's really that's really important for for these data center projects to um kind of accelerate how quickly we can actually build them. Um the same piece though with the fact that, you know, if if you right now budget six to nine

um months for for your design portion, almost none of that you're gonna start to figure out, well, how do we optimize that design or do some sort of value engineering to save costs or um to design for long lead items or to design for constructibility.

So really strong value prop in these data center projects. Um a as we as we end up kind of increasing the capacity that we have on our team though, it'll make sense to pick up um uh uh basically many of these types of large industrial projects, um, of which we've already pushed the kind of technology to be able to demonstrate and um and it'll end up being like really applicable across all types of construction.

So if you can Deliver more certainty up front. then that presumably is the thing that unlocks a different kind of uh business model that that hopefully solves the incentive pro problem. Is that just a fixed price contract with no change orders allowed or what does that look like? That's exactly it. We literally put like no change orders in our contracts. So you wear the explosion.

Like you wear all the risk, basically. If there's a cost overrun, you're gonna you're gonna go negative on the project. And the and the premise here is that cause EPCs notoriously don't have huge margins, right? Construction firms are like high volume, low margin type businesses. And so I guess the the thinking on your side has got to be Because we're reducing the cost of everything along the way, we naturally have higher margins.

which would allow us a little bit of a buffer if we if things do become a little more expensive than we expected, at least we're not like in the red. Is that do I have that concept right?

Um Yeah, I mean we definitely will have a different margin profile than the industry, but it's not that um i because even when you think about it, the engineering margin, uh, it's like it's pretty small because the spend of the engineering is actually really small relative to the larger s the larger construction scope of the project.

Um, the important part of what allows us to absorb that risk without the um kind of risk that we go into the red or or at least in a risk adjusted way is because we've been able to do so much design up front. And we've been able to not only um

uh kind of like remove all that extra risk by taking the definition instead of you know doing that at thirty percent, we can take that definition all the way through a hundred percent. Um it's it you just remove all this ambiguity of how much the thing should actually cost. So when you you know, again, traditionally when someone gives a a contract to go build a project.

Because they have such little core definition, they don't even they don't know all the vendors that they're gonna buy from. They have, you know, you even mentioned, I think, this example earlier of like uh there's like a tariff risk by the time that you, you know, you fund the project and you commit to a cost.

Tariff can change. Uh in the you know, six more months you need to finish the design in order to order the parts. Um uh that doesn't exist in our world because we've been able to just uh very, very quickly remove all this risk before we actually commit to a price. And that's very interesting.

Wait, how does that work? So so that's a very it's a good specific example. So I guess what you would do is issue the purchase order for all of the material before you commit to a price to the customer? Like how do you avoid the terrorist?

Yeah, exactly. It's timing it all out. So um when uh uh uh uh just to compare this again to how it works today, is you'd only when you when you'd say, Hey, we're the EPC, we're gonna give you a a performance guarantee or some sort of fixed firm price when you go to

buy this uh or fund this project uh with like a notice to proceed or final investment decision. At that point you just you literally don't even know all your bulks, like so your all your commodity equipment, your the steel that you need, the the wire that you need, et cetera. Um, we will know all of that at this point in time because we're not thirty percent definition, we're a hundred percent engineering definition.

And because we have this entire equipment list at this point in time, um, we know either how to say, hey, let's purchase everything at the s at the same day that the project gets funded, let's go either purchase everything. Or let's design hedges from a cost perspective so that we're not exposed to some sort of volatility or risk.

That's complex, right? I'm thinking of these big construction projects, right? And you're either on on the on the day that you sign the contract, you're either buying all of the steel, just as a random specific example. Or you're hedging steel prices at the project by project level. to make sure that you don't overpay for steel. That's kind of what you need to do. Yeah.

That's what allows you to to truly like have an um uh kind of a a a very different risk assessment for how these projects get built. And that what gives you a ability to do a fixed firm and actually mean it. Um most of these fixed firms aren't really like

Industry themselves, I mean, we've we've seen time and time again where it's like a fixed firm doesn't really mean a fixed firm. Uh, because there's inevitably some way that in the thousand page contract that you assigned with your EPC, you went out of scope and invalidated that price. Um, hence the uh the kind of change order trickery.

I guess the other thing that that I wonder how you manage is um Is subcontractors, right? Like it it's another area where change orders come from not just the general contractor or the EPC. having to make a change order, but also because some subcontractor made a change order. So do you have to flow this all first of all, are you going to use subch contractors? You're just going to do everything in house and have a ton of people on staff.

And if you are going to use subcontractors, do you have to then flow this change in a uh structure down through all of them where they can't issue any change orders to you either? Yeah. Um certainly long term we will do everything in-house. We will uh vertically integrate as much as possible um because that's where you can fix the incentives all the way through. Um

Yes. For these initial projects as we take, we are working friendly with like the local GC or even the trades, um, even the the the actual folks that we will subcontract a lot of this work out to. Um, it it for that it is is making sure that we pri prior to entering into a contract, you have the kind of the same thing where often those contracts are not as um

Uh the the level of definition that you have when you're asking someone to uh actually give you a fixed price on what a scope of work is is very hard. Um We don't have that same problem because we take things way deeper through definition and we have a much better understanding of what should this actually cost to go build.

So um we yeah, there's there's a a handful of different ways that we kind of approach working with the actual uh subcontractors as we do this to hit our performance goals. Um, but the it it is this kind of like um uh continuing loop of how do you remove more and more risk through uh design.

All right, so to wrap it up, um w you don't have to give me exact numbers, but like when when should we expect to see the first Uh, C O D, when should we expect to see the first project constructed by you guys? I love it. Um yeah, well hopefully see you next year. So hopefully bye-bye next year. Yeah. Fast is the rule. Alex, um, thank you so much for the time. Really appreciate it. I appreciate it thanks y'all

Alex Mudon is the CEO and co-founder of Unlimited Industries. This show is a production of Latitude Media. You can head over to latitudmedia.com for links to today's topic. Latitude is supported by Prelude Ventures. This episode was produced by Daniel Waldorf. Mixing and theme song by Sean Marquand. Stephen Lacey is our executive editor. I'm Shale Khan, and this is Catalyst.