Front-end engineering for owners facing asset retirement — feasibility, method development, cost modelling, risk assessment, temporary works design and tender-stage technical support.
- Engagement types
- Feasibility · FEED · owner's engineer · tender support
- Typical duration
- 3 – 14 weeks
- Deliverables
- Report · method statements · cost model · risk register
- Design capability
- Temporary works · load path · lift engineering
The decisions that determine whether a dismantling project succeeds are taken before anyone mobilises. What end state is required. Whether the structure can be taken down the way the budget assumes. What the material actually contains. Where the programme is genuinely constrained rather than merely inconvenient. Get those wrong and no amount of execution quality recovers the position.
DDMS Global provides front-end engineering to owners who are still deciding — including owners who will ultimately tender the work elsewhere. Feasibility studies, method development, cost models built from first principles rather than rate benchmarks, structural assessment, temporary works design and HAZID facilitation are all available as a standalone consultancy engagement.
Our advantage as an advisor is that we execute. Method statements written by people who have to deliver them tend to be realistic about access, crane standing, permit throughput and the difference between what a drawing shows and what a forty-year-old plant actually looks like. Owners consistently tell us that is what they were missing from purely desk-based advice.
Scope coverage
- Decommissioning feasibility studies
- Dismantling method development
- Cost modelling and budget estimation
- Structural and load-path assessment
- Temporary works design
- Risk assessment and HAZID facilitation
- Tender documentation and technical evaluation
- Owner-side technical representation
Brief and end-state definition
Establishing what completion actually means — demolition extent, land condition, retained assets, redevelopment constraints and the commercial and regulatory drivers behind them.
Site and records review
Physical survey reconciled against the available drawing set, maintenance history and modification records, with gaps and inconsistencies explicitly identified.
Options development
Two or more credible execution strategies developed to comparable depth, with programme, cost, risk and recovery implications set out for each rather than a single recommended answer.
Engineering assessment
Structural and load-path analysis, temporary works requirements, lift feasibility and constructability review of each option under consideration.
Cost and programme modelling
Bottom-up cost model built from resource, plant, duration and disposal quantities, with recovery value modelled separately and sensitivities stated.
Risk assessment and HAZID
Facilitated hazard identification with the owner's operations and HSE teams, producing a risk register that carries forward into execution documentation.
Deliverable and tender support
Issued report with recommendations, and — where required — scope of works, technical specification and tender evaluation support.
Advice grounded in delivery
Methods are written by engineers who execute them, which is why they survive contact with real access, real permits and real plant condition.
Options, not a single answer
Comparable strategies developed to equal depth let you make the trade-off between cost, programme, risk and recovery yourself.
Budget you can defend
Bottom-up cost models with stated assumptions and sensitivities hold up to internal scrutiny far better than benchmark rates.
Independent engagement available
We are content to advise on projects we will not execute, and will say so explicitly where that separation matters to your governance.
- Engagement types
- Feasibility · FEED · owner's engineer · tender support
- Typical duration
- 3 – 14 weeks
- Deliverables
- Report · method statements · cost model · risk register
- Design capability
- Temporary works · load path · lift engineering
- Independence
- Advisory-only engagements accepted
Answered directly by the engineers who deliver this scope.
Yes. A meaningful share of our consultancy work is purely advisory, and where a client's governance requires clear separation between advisor and contractor we will confirm that in writing at engagement and stay out of the subsequent tender.
Before the shutdown decision is finalised, if possible. How a plant is left at final shutdown — what is drained, purged, isolated, left charged — has a large influence on decommissioning cost, and those choices are still open while the plant is running.
We can produce an order-of-magnitude figure from drawings and photographs with the uncertainty range stated honestly. For a budget figure that will be committed against, a physical survey is necessary — legacy plant deviates from its documentation often enough that desk estimates carry real risk.
Yes — propping, needling, façade retention, edge protection, crane standing platforms and load-spreading arrangements, issued with calculations and drawings suitable for independent review.
Yes. We provide technical representation on the owner's side including method statement review, temporary works checking, lift plan verification, progress monitoring and close-out evidence assurance.
Talk to us about engineering consultancy.
Send the asset, the constraint and the date. We will come back with a method and a realistic programme before anyone discusses price.