Contract-Level Project Finance and Revenue Recovery Design Lead

The mandate

The narrow problem is that project-finance schedules do not consistently translate contract acceptance and remaining effort into supportable revenue and margin decisions. The consultant will design that evidence route for agreed services contracts. The project does not authorise accounting policy changes or negotiate customer acceptance.

Deliverables are a contract decision matrix, project-finance review pack and revenue-recognition operating procedure. Each judgement must show its source, authorised approver and unresolved conditions. The pack should distinguish a data correction from a policy question and a commercial dispute, rather than route all three through one generic finance exception.

Contract evidence redesign starts on 19 October 2026 and spans four months to 18 February 2027. Its first milestone, due 23 November, supplies sampled contract and reporting gaps. By 11 January, the second delivers the redesigned pack and pilot decisions. Final acceptance on 18 February follows fresh-case validation and analyst transfer. Three delivery days weekly are required.

The finance director and designated project-finance owner accept the work. They must trace selected judgements to contract and delivery evidence, process a fresh scope change and reproduce the margin consequence. The pilot includes incomplete acceptance support and a disputed remaining-cost assumption. A model that merely reproduces the existing aggregate forecast will not meet the evidence test.

The sponsor provides authorised contracts, project records and access to nominated delivery and commercial owners. Delhi NCR is primary with planned remote regional sessions. Historic transaction correction, customer collections and full system implementation are excluded. Additional contract families or ongoing close support need approved scope control before they alter the project fee or completion date.

What you will own

• Map contractual acceptance, billing and service obligations to finance decisions, preserving source and approval boundaries before redesigning the project review procedure.
• Reconcile sampled project schedules with delivery and cost evidence, identifying unsupported assumptions rather than forcing the baseline to match the existing forecast.
• Build the decision matrix that separates data defects, policy questions and commercial disputes, assigning each to the authorised owner and retained evidence requirement.
• Design remaining-cost and scope-change review files that preserve the original case, enabling users to explain why margin changes instead of overwriting history.
• Pilot incomplete acceptance and disputed cost cases, observing whether users can reach a supportable approval or escalation within normal reporting routines.
• Revise the pack from fresh-case failures, specifying which acceptance record or remaining-cost evidence is needed before an uncertain revenue or margin conclusion can change.
• Transfer the procedure through independent analyst execution of a disputed-scope case, confirming that maintenance owners preserve unresolved evidence and obtain commercial approval before revising the forecast.

Candidate qualifications

• Demonstrate hands-on project finance or revenue-recognition process work in research or professional services. Explain a contract judgement and the evidence that distinguished operational completion from a supportable finance treatment.
• Show technical competence in remaining-cost and scope-change analysis. Candidates should describe a margin movement that could not be explained by price or volume alone and how the missing obligation was identified.
• Provide process-design evidence tested through incomplete or disputed cases. Explain a user failure, the ambiguous authority or evidence gap discovered and the revision made before acceptance.
• Evidence consulting scope, acceptance and transfer discipline. Show how the sponsor reproduced a fresh judgement and how requests for ongoing close work were kept separate from the bounded design fee.
• Demonstrate professional accounting capability and controlled source handling. The project does not confer policy or customer-negotiation authority. Candidates should explain how a disputed contract condition remained visible in the pack, what evidence could resolve it and why a central adjustment was not used to conceal the unresolved commercial or delivery issue. Show how the review pack handles a project with supported cost records but incomplete customer acceptance. Candidates should explain the separate financial scenario, the unchanged source limitation and the authorised next decision rather than assuming the model can remove a contractual uncertainty.

Application

Applications for this mandate are received in one way only: through the India Board Terminal's application process. It is automated end to end. Your Executive Passport travels to the mandate holder in its confidential form, your answers to the three questions below are read before anything else in your file, and every stage that follows is recorded on your applications page.

There is no address to write to and no intermediary to call. The mandate holder reads what the Terminal delivers and nothing else, which is what keeps the process the same for every applicant and keeps your name out of it until you release it. Applications close on 9 October 2026. Mandate reference PCT-CON-2026-IND-17.