The difference between periodic site visits and full-time PMC is the difference between reporting problems and preventing them.
A set of drawings does not build a factory. Somebody has to hold contractors to them, catch deviations while they are still cheap to correct, and keep a dozen agencies working to one programme. That is what project management consultancy is.
We offer it at two levels, and it is worth being clear about the difference because they are often sold as though they were the same thing.
Periodic supervision means scheduled site visits at defined intervals and milestones, with reports on progress and quality. It suits projects with a capable in-house team who need independent technical oversight rather than day-to-day management.
Full-time PMC places our people on site continuously. The distinction matters because most costly construction problems are not discovered at a milestone inspection — they are decisions taken between inspections. A deviation caught the day it happens costs a conversation; caught three weeks later it costs demolition.
Where we have produced the design, PMC is materially stronger, because the people checking the work already know why each detail is the way it is. A crane runway tolerance or a floor flatness class is not an abstract specification to be enforced — it is a requirement someone on our team calculated.
We also take on PMC for projects designed by others. In that case the first task is a design review, so that we understand what we are being asked to enforce before we start enforcing it.
These three are not independent. Programme pressure produces quality compromise, quality compromise produces rework, and rework destroys both cost and programme. Tracking them as one picture rather than three separate reports is what lets you see a problem while it is still a small one.
Our reporting covers progress against programme, quality observations with photographic record, variation and cost tracking, and a forward view of decisions you need to make before they become urgent.
It depends on your own team. If you have experienced project people in-house and need independent technical checking, periodic supervision is usually sufficient and considerably cheaper. If your team is running the business rather than the build, full-time is what actually protects the outcome. For projects with heavy process equipment, tight tolerances or a compressed programme, we would recommend full-time.
No, and we would rather be clear about it than imply otherwise. We prepare the drawings and technical documentation your applications require — layout drawings, statutory submissions and supporting documents — but the liaison and filing process itself stays with you or a liaison consultant you appoint. Firms that promise to handle approvals are usually subcontracting it anyway.
Yes. It begins with a condition and design review so we know what has been built, what was specified, and where the two differ. That review is worth doing honestly even if you then decide not to appoint us — knowing the actual position is better than assuming.
It is the first question every client asks, and an honest answer needs two things from you: the process the building has to house, and the plot. A general-purpose shed and a heavy manufacturing bay of the same floor area differ by a wide margin, because the heavy bay needs crane-rated structure, process zoning and power infrastructure the shed does not. Consultancy fees are normally a percentage of construction cost, scaled to the scope you actually need — design only, design plus coordination, or full project management. Send us the plot details and what you intend to manufacture and you will get a specific fee proposal rather than a range.
Tell us the plot and what you intend to manufacture. Industrial projects from ₹5 Crore upward.
Or message us on WhatsApp