Project type

Operational risk structuring

Industry

Aluminium structures and renewable energy infrastructure

Role of UA Consulting

Engaged to structure cooperation model and allocate technical responsibility

Confidentiality statement

Confidential details omitted due to client and regulatory restrictions

Context

A Ukrainian manufacturer of aluminium profile systems sought to diversify beyond construction applications into infrastructure projects. The company possessed production capacity and fabrication expertise but lacked engineering competence in load calculations for solar installations. Entry into this segment required cooperation with a specialised engineering partner.

An established Spanish engineering company with experience in photovoltaic mounting systems considered local production to shorten supply chains and enable regional deployment. However, cooperation required transferring part of the manufacturing process to a partner that had never operated within power generation standards.

For the Ukrainian company, the opportunity implied transition into a new industrial category.

For the engineering company, it implied reliance on a third party for components affecting system performance.

The question was not commercial feasibility but whether cooperation could exist without either side assuming uncontrolled technical exposure.

Decision Tension

The initial cooperation model appeared to be a standard supply contract for structural components.

However, in solar generation projects the supplier of mounting systems effectively participates in ensuring the operability of the power plant.

Signing a typical agreement meant that the Ukrainian manufacturer accepted obligations whose consequences would arise not at delivery, but throughout the operational life of the installation.

The Spanish engineering company was responsible for calculations, design and configuration.

Yet under a conventional contractual structure liability for deformation, misalignment, or site inconsistency could shift to the manufacturer as the party that physically produced the structures.

In this configuration a legal drafting error converted a production contract into a long-term technical obligation.

Declining participation meant losing entry into a new industrial segment.

Signing without restructuring meant assuming responsibility for an outcome the company did not control.

Mandate

UA Consulting was engaged to determine whether a partnership structure could allow market entry while preventing transfer of engineering risk to the manufacturing party and preserving technical authority for the engineering partner.

The engagement focused on making cooperation operationally possible rather than commercially attractive.

Approach

The engagement examined how project responsibility arose during installation rather than at the manufacturing stage.

Several cooperation structures were considered equivalent commercially but not operationally.

A conventional supplier agreement was rejected because installation adjustments would redefine the manufacturer as the responsible technical party.

A licensing arrangement was rejected because it transferred design interpretation to the local production side.

The structure evolved around separating documentation ownership from fabrication execution.

Engineering decisions remained traceable to the engineering partner, while the manufacturer produced only against confirmed specifications.

The contractual logic required every deviation to generate a new confirmed parameter rather than an informal site adaptation.

Key Finding

The risk was not manufacturing accuracy but allocation of engineering responsibility.

Technical specifications could be met in full, yet if obligations were distributed incorrectly the manufacturer effectively became the performance guarantor of the power plant.

Decision

A separated responsibility model was adopted.

The engineering company assumed the design parameters and system performance responsibility.

The Ukrainian manufacturer remained accountable solely for conformity of fabricated elements to approved documentation.

The contract established that any project modification automatically transferred responsibility to the initiator of the change.

The decision converted an operational exposure into a contractually managed one.

Implementation & Support

After execution of the agreements the interaction model changed.

All technical adjustments required formal confirmation of the origin of the engineering decision.

The manufacturer no longer accepted informal site corrections and operated strictly within approved parameters.

The engineering side retained control over calculations and design logic.

The project progressed as a joint implementation, yet obligations no longer depended on interpretation during construction.

Subsequent installations followed the same cooperation structure without renegotiating risk allocation.

Outcome

The Ukrainian manufacturing company entered a new business segment without assuming long-term operational exposure.

The Spanish engineering company retained control over the technical outcome of the installation.

The cooperation model became repeatable for subsequent projects without altering the allocation of responsibility.

Clients & Cases

Clients

Cases

Cases