Financial Feasibility, Modelling and Asset Monetisation in Government & Public Sector Project Development: An Embedded Practice-Based Study at a Big Four Advisory Firm

Most of what we know about capital budgeting comes from studying corporate finance departments. We know far less about the advisory firms that prepare projects for government, even though a large share of India’s infrastructure pipeline passes through their hands. This paper takes a small look inside one of them. I spent my on-the-job training in the Government & Public Sector (G&PS) practice of KPMG’s Indian advisory arm, and I use a work tracker of 33 task-level entries (10 July–24 August 2026), together with sector evidence and fifteen peer-reviewed sources, to ask four questions about how financial analysis is actually done in that setting. The short answer is that a recognisable capital-budgeting pipeline exists (site and demand assessment, then a financial model, then a Detailed Project Report), but public-sector realities bend it: confidentiality, many layers of sign-off, and tender deadlines. I also found that bid and proposal work made up 36% of my logged entries, almost as much as pre-feasibility and modelling (39%). The two are not rivals. They are stages of one chain: win the mandate, do the analysis, protect the commercial terms. I propose a one-page assumption-traceability sheet that ties feasibility findings to model inputs, and I set out a research agenda on how Indian G&PS practices balance advisory and bid work. The evidence comes from one trainee’s vantage point, one tracker and confidential projects, so the findings describe process and pattern, not financial outcomes. Keywords: financial feasibility; financial modelling; capital budgeting; public–private partnership; asset monetisation; National Monetisation Pipeline; government advisory; bid management; Big Four; India