How to Engage With Aqua Design
The right output for where your project actually is.
We tailor every engagement to your situation, whether that's a compliance deadline, unstable performance, vendor proposals, or a reuse or biosolids decision. FlowPlan is the structure we use to turn that work into a clear output you can act on: a Decision Study (commit), a Process Design Pack (procure/build), or stage-ready Report Packs (approve, procure, commission).
Start here by situation
Deliverables
Each deliverable aligns to a different project situation: decide, procure/build, or manage by stage.
The situations below point to the output that best fits the work.
Find your situation
Start with what's driving the work
Start with the situation closest to the project. Each one points toward the kind of work that usually clarifies scope, strengthens vendor decisions, or moves the project forward.
We often step in after concept work, once vendors are already in play, or when a system is running but performance isn't holding.
Performance or compliance isn't holding
Violations, unstable treatment, odour/septicity, rising OPEX, inconsistent reuse quality. Isolate the actual constraint before spending more.
Typical output
- Constraint map with project basis, what's failing, where, why
- Immediate actions + next test plan
We need a clear pathway and scope
Upgrade, new line, or retrofit, but route, responsibilities, and scope boundaries aren't clean enough to note vendors or secure approvals.
Typical output
- Recommended pathway + high-level configuration
- Clean scope boundaries + responsibilities
We have vendor proposals, need comparability
Quotes or pitches in hand, but not comparable. Different assumptions, KPIs, exclusions, or hidden scope gaps.
Typical output
- Apples-to-apples comparison matrix + questions back to vendors
- Decision memo + next steps
Reuse or biosolids route needs a sound basis
A route approvals can accept, with quality targets, logistics, risk, monitoring, and project basis that it will hold through operation.
Typical output
- Well-supported reuse/residuals pathway with risks + mitigation
- KPIs + monitoring/verification plan
Route chosen, make it buildable
Direction is agreed. Now you need a process design pack vendors can price and build from: load cases, sizing, connections, responsibilities, performance criteria, and review tests.
Typical output
- Process Design Pack + connection schedule + equipment schedule
- Review + commissioning records requirements
Stage-ready reports for approvals and procurement
Stage-ready documentation for approvals: feasibility to scope, procurement to commissioning. Continuity and traceability throughout.
Typical output
- Stage report pack with a clear decision point per phase
- Traceability from assumptions → scope → commissioning records
What this usually leads into
Four types of work. One that fits your situation.
The next step doesn't always look the same. Some situations need a focused technical review, others need clearer pathway definition, bid-ready scope, or performance verification.
Clarify what's failing before spending more
When something is drifting or failing, clarify what's actually happening before committing more budget or time.
- Isolates the actual issue, not the presenting symptom
- Establishes the tests and project basis needed for the next decision
Turn intent into scope vendors can use
Direction is broadly known, upgrade, reuse, retrofit, sludge route. Now you need a process design pack with KPIs, responsibilities, phasing, and a design basis vendors can quote against.
- Maps the pathway across treatment, residuals, utilities, monitoring
- Turns intent into a scope structure vendors can price and deliver
Get all proposals quoting the same thing
Comparable bids require scope boundaries, performance criteria, responsibilities, and required records. Without them, proposals can't be evaluated on the same basis.
- Prevents scope drift and exclusions after award
- Makes responsibilities and vendor scope explicit
Hold the design intent through to commissioning
Equipment is selected or installed, keep outcomes on track: submittal reviews, commissioning records aligned to review, performance gap troubleshooting.
- Continuity between early assumptions and what the plant must deliver
- Commissioning review is pre-defined, not retrofitted at handover
Deliverables
Decide. Procure. Approve. A deliverable for each.
Each deliverable exists to solve a different problem: make a decision, create bid-ready scope, or produce stage-ready reports that keep approvals and delivery aligned.
Make a sound decision.
A short, decision-ready study that supports commitment, with apples-to-apples vendor comparability.
Designed for
- A compliance deadline or violation risk creates the need for a clear route
- Vendor proposals are on the table but are not yet comparable
- Stakeholders are split and you need a documented recommendation
Typical contents
- Options comparison: KPIs, constraints, CAPEX/OPEX ranges, and responsibilities
- Data gaps + minimum sampling / testing needed
- Verification plan + review tests, what must be proven
Outcome
- Decision memo that can be carried forward internally
- Clear next step: tighten scope, pilot, or proceed to a design pack
A process design pack vendors can price and build from.
Load cases, sizing, equipment schedules, connections, scope boundaries, and review criteria assembled into one clear pack so EPC and vendor teams can proceed without re-working the design basis.
Designed for
- Direction is chosen, but scope is still vague or fragmented
- You need clear scope boundaries to avoid scope drift after award
- You want commissioning requirements embedded before procurement
Typical contents
- Design basis + load cases + PFD + key criteria / KPIs
- Equipment schedule + scope boundaries + connection schedule
- Review / commissioning plan, tests, project basis, and handover
Outcome
- Scope vendors can quote on the same basis
- Smoother handover to EPC / OEM delivery and fewer surprises
Stage-ready report packs.
Report packs that carry project basis, scope, and review requirements from early direction through procurement and into commissioning.
Designed for
- Approvals, lender review, or procurement call for structured report outputs
- The work can be carried in report packs rather than as one continuous engagement
- Continuity matters from early direction through procurement and into commissioning
Typical contents
- Project Background, Feasibility, Specification / Terms of Reference, and commissioning alignment notes
- Decision points, scope logic, and review records carried across the relevant stages
- Clear handover points between early direction, procurement-ready scope, and commissioning follow-through
Outcome
- Approvals, procurement, and commissioning stay aligned
- Report logic stays connected from project basis through delivery
Sourcing Advisory
Keep bids comparable from RFP through award.
Turn the agreed design basis into a procurement package with controlled scope, clear coordination points, and comparison logic that keeps bids aligned from first submission through award.
Designed for
- Bids are not comparable
- “Equivalent” language is too open and suppliers are redefining the job
- Delivery checks are unclear and procurement deadlines are tight
Typical contents
- RFP / ToR pack with scope boundaries and supplier responsibilities
- Evaluation matrix for technical and commercial comparison, plus clarification tracking
- Award and delivery checks for commissioning, performance review, and KPIs
Outcome
- A procurement package suppliers can price against on the same basis
- Clearer award decisions and contract carry-through into delivery
Report Packs
No gaps between what was designed and what gets delivered.
Report Packs are stage-based deliverables that can be commissioned on their own or carried within a project pathway. They keep assumptions, scope, and project basis connected across approvals, procurement, and commissioning, so delivery doesn't drift.
Stage 1
A clear route before vendors are engaged
Outcome: Approval-ready route, information plan, and clean design basis.
- Project background + compliance / approval alignment note
- Options comparison + feasibility snapshot (technical + commercial)
- Decision points + minimum inputs + verification requirements
Packs: Project Background & Early direction • Feasibility & Planning
Stage 2
Give vendors scope they can actually price
Outcome: Scope, KPIs, responsibilities, and review criteria so all proposals quote to the same basis.
- Scope boundaries and responsibilities, no gaps
- ToR / spec structure + review criteria
- Verification intent + information plan
Packs: Implementation Alignment • Vendor & Contracting Support
Stage 3
What was designed is what gets commissioned
Outcome: Assumptions and scope carried through delivery, performance verifiable after start-up.
- Commissioning & start-up alignment + handover approach
- Performance test plan + KPI monitoring scheme
- Optimisation roadmap (post-implementation)
Packs: Commissioning & Performance • Optimisation & Upside
How the report packs are usually grouped
These examples show how report packs are commonly grouped around project need: early direction and feasibility, procurement-ready scope, or continuity through commissioning and follow-through.
Pack 1
Before vendors engage
Project Background & Early direction + Feasibility & Planning
When the project is active but the route, project basis, or what the project needs to deliver is not yet clear enough to move forward confidently.
- Project Background Report + Regulatory Alignment Note
- Options Comparison Matrix + Feasibility Snapshot
- Indicative Route & Phasing Notes with decision points
Leads to: a clear preferred route and a clean basis for design.
Pack 2
Vendor engagement / spec-ready
Implementation Alignment + Vendor & Contracting Support
When suppliers need to propose against one clear process scope, without over-prescribing the design.
- Scope & ToR / Spec Pack + review ranges
- Connection matrix + responsibilities + verification plan
- Evaluation method + vendor clarifications log
Leads to: comparable proposals and fewer integration surprises after award.
Pack 3
Multi-phase / multi-site
Commissioning & Performance + Optimisation & Upside
When work is happening in waves and decisions, assumptions, and commissioning records must stay aligned across stages.
- Commissioning & start-up alignment + handover guidance
- Performance test plan + KPI monitoring scheme
- Optimisation & upside roadmap (post-implementation)
Leads to: consistent outcomes, no re-buying the same work across phases.
Process
How an engagement starts
Not sure which deliverable fits?
Browse Project Variants to see typical pathways and where each deliverable fits, or open Diagnostics & Tools for troubleshooting entry points.
Start with your situation. We'll suggest the scope.
Send a short note with your current situation, any available data, and where you expect the work to help. We will respond with a suggested pathway (diagnostics, advisory pack, or project configuration) and a proposed starting scope.
- Where your facility is (type, size, sector)
- What is driving the change (compliance, cost, reuse, risk)
- Any existing studies, designs, or vendor proposals
- Timelines or constraints we should be aware of
We treat all shared information as confidential and use it only to set out the engagement.