Utility-scale solar project delivery
One project record for utility-scale solar delivery.
Carry site assumptions, foundation decisions, quantities, estimate logic, supplier commitments, forecasts, and field progress through the project without rebuilding the job at every handoff.
Infrenta connects estimating, GeoLab, procurement, project controls, and execution around the same utility-scale solar project — posts, tables, RFQs, and installed production included.
Red Mesa Solar · 86.4 MWdc · Maricopa County, Arizona
How a utility-scale solar project moves
Site and layout context enter the five workflows. Those workflows are different views of the same project — not six rebuilt files.
01 · Project input
Site / Geotech
- Soil profile
- Frost depth
- Groundwater
- Refusal risk
- Foundation options
Investigation context enters GeoLab as structured site conditions — not a PDF that estimating never opens.
02 · Workflow
Estimating
- Driven posts
- Helical piles
- Ground screws
- Embedment
- Issued assumption
A reviewed foundation assumption leaves with source, status, and a quantity estimating can inherit.
03 · Project input
Layout & Engineering
- Table configuration
- Row / table geometry
- Pile quantity
- Revision
- IFC context
Layout geometry and engineering review stay attached to the same quantity identity the commercial record will use.
04 · Workflow
Procurement
- Quantity
- Rate build-up
- Labor / equipment
- Allowances
- Issued revision
The priced line opens into quantity, rate, and source so procurement is not guessing which workbook is live.
05 · Workflow
Project Controls
- RFQ quantity
- Landed cost
- Lead time
- Supplier comparison
- Commitment
The RFQ carries the approved quantity. The award becomes a commitment on the same line.
06 · Workflow
Execution
- Budget
- Committed
- Forecast
- Variance
Budget, commitment, and forecast stay on one structure instead of three rebuilt workbooks.
07 · Workflow
GeoLab
- Installed quantity
- Production
- Daily report
- Constraint
- Completion
Field records use the same quantity identity the estimate and RFQ already used.
Scroll sideways to see every stage.
Where solar projects break
Utility-scale jobs do not fail because teams lack spreadsheets. They fail because the project is rebuilt every time it moves from engineering to estimating to procurement to controls to the field.
Disconnected artifacts
Engineering → Estimating
The latest foundation recommendation does not reach the estimate.
Geotech PDF + engineering workbook
Estimating → Procurement
The RFQ is built from another spreadsheet or an outdated quantity.
Quantity takeoff + estimate spreadsheet
Procurement → Controls
Committed supplier cost is reconstructed by hand in the budget.
Supplier quote + email
Controls → Field
Field teams see production without the assumptions that created the target.
Budget workbook + field tracker
Revision → Everyone
A quantity changes and downstream teams do not know what changed or why.
Side copy of the same number
Instead
One connected project record.
Quantities, assumptions, technical decisions, estimate logic, revisions, supplier scope, commitments, budget, forecast, and execution context stay on the same solar project.
- Quantity identity
- 12,400 EA
- Issued estimate
- $2,703,200
- Commitment
- $2,616,400
- Installed
- 3,180 of 12,400
GeoLab
Site conditions should become an issued project decision.
Technical assumptions should not disappear when the project becomes a commercial estimate.
01
Geotechnical report
02
Extracted site conditions
03
Foundation options
04
Engineering review
05
Selected assumption
06
Quantity / cost impact
Options compared
- Driven pile / post
- Helical pile
- Ground screw
Site factors
- Frost
- Bedrock / refusal
- Uplift
- Embedment
- Groundwater
Issued for estimating
Driven W6×15 steel posts
12 ft embedment in sandy alluvium; frost not governing
12,400 EA · Issued for estimating
GeoLab is decision-support. It does not replace project-specific engineering review or sealed design.
Estimating
Open the total back into quantity, rate, and source.
A utility-scale estimate is a compiled calculation. Reviewers should be able to challenge an assumption instead of guessing which tab is live.
- Steel
- Foundations
- Racking
- Labor
- Equipment
- Freight
- Subcontractors
- Engineering
- Overheads / indirects
- Contingency
EST-FND-012
Driven foundation posts
$2,703,200
12,400 × $218 = $2,703,200
Steel section
$96
Coating
$14
Freight allocation
$18
Install labor & equipment
$90
Estimate Rev 04 · 42 posts / rig-day · 2 rigs planned. Deterministic compile — not an AI-generated total.
Procurement
Start the RFQ from approved scope.
Procurement should start from approved project scope, not from another manually rebuilt spreadsheet.
01
Estimate quantity
02
RFQ
03
Supplier comparison
04
Landed cost
05
Selected supplier
06
Commitment
| Supplier | Landed / EA | Lead | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier A | $226 | 84 days | Coating included |
| Supplier B | $211 | 96 days | Selected |
| Supplier C | $219 | 78 days | Freight extra |
RMS-FND-004 · Supplier B at $211 landed = $2,616,400. Comparison uses material landed cost and lead time already on the project. No live market feed is implied.
Project Controls
Budget, committed, and forecast on one line.
A PM should see not only that forecast moved, but which project decision caused it. Negative variance is under budget on this line.
- Budget
- $2,703,200
- Committed
- $2,616,400
- Forecast
- $2,641,800
- Forecast vs budget
- -$61,400
- Commitment vs budget
- -$86,800
- Remaining install exposure
- $25,400
Estimate Rev 04
RMS-FND-004
$2,616,400 + $25,400 remaining install exposure
Negative is under budget
Awarded landed total versus issued estimate
Named allowance. Not remaining quantity × rate.
Execution
The record should still mean the same thing after construction starts.
Installed quantity, production, daily reporting, quality and safety records, constraints, and closeout stay on the project used for the estimate and the RFQ.
- Installed
- 3,180 of 12,400
- Remaining
- 9,220 EA
- Daily production
- 38 posts
- Field record
- DR-114 · 2026-06-04
25.6% complete
12,400 − 3,180
Plan 42 posts / day
Driving Array Blocks A–B
One project object
Follow one foundation through the project.
This is one driven post viewed by every team — not six unrelated records. Driven foundation posts on Red Mesa Solar.
01 · GeoLab
Driven W6×15 steel posts
12 ft embedment in sandy alluvium; frost not governing
02 · Engineering
12,400 EA
Layout post count issued with the foundation assumption.
03 · Estimating
$2,703,200 · $218 / EA
12,400 × $218 = $2,703,200
04 · Procurement
Supplier B · $2,616,400
RMS-FND-004 at $211 landed.
05 · Project Controls
$2,641,800
$2,616,400 + $25,400 remaining install exposure.
06 · Execution
3,180 installed · 9,220 remaining
25.6% of 12,400 EA.
What each role keeps
Estimating
Know where quantities and assumptions came from, and keep the issued revision available for the teams who buy and control the work.
Engineering
See the commercial consequence of a foundation or layout decision while the assumption is still attached to the record.
Procurement
Source against current approved scope — RFQ quantity, landed comparison, and commitment on the same line.
Project Controls
Track budget, commitment, and forecast without reconstructing the estimate in another workbook.
Field
Work against current quantities and project context after construction starts.
Leadership
Read one project story rather than competing departmental spreadsheets.
Built around solar delivery, not a generic project board.
Technical + commercial context
A foundation or layout decision can carry into the estimate, the RFQ, and the forecast instead of dying in a report.
Estimate lineage
Totals retain quantity, rate build-up, source, and revision. Invited users can open the math through Explain This Number; it is not an AI guess and not the default estimating workspace for every customer.
Foundation intelligence
Geotechnical inputs can shape the issued assumption — driven posts, helicals, or ground screws — before purchasing starts.
Procurement continuity
RFQs keep the approved quantity and package scope. Comparison is against that scope, then a commitment is recorded.
Forecast traceability
Project controls can show that forecast moved because of commitment and remaining install exposure — not a rebuilt file.
Solar-native objects
Quantities, foundations, tables, site conditions, steel, racking, and installed production are first-class project concepts.
Red Mesa Solar is the public walkthrough.
86.4 MWdc, Maricopa County, Arizona. The same driven-post quantity moves from GeoLab into estimating, procurement, controls, and execution.
Sample project
Red Mesa Solar
86.4 MWdc · Maricopa County, Arizona · Preconstruction
Stage 1 of 5 · Next: Procurement
Compile a priced line, then issue the revision so purchasing can use the same quantity. Figures are illustrative demonstration data.
Foundation quantity
12,400 EA
EST-FND-012
Unit rate
$218
USD / EA
Line total
$2,703,200
Estimate Rev 04 · not whole-project CAPEX
How invited users can open a compiled line
12,400 × $218 = $2,703,200
Demonstration of a compiled calculation. Invited users can open a total this way; it is not the default estimating workspace for every customer. The estimating engine is deterministic.
Illustrative sample project. Figures are fictional demonstration data for a public walkthrough.
Explore the full Red Mesa project
Illustrative sample project. Figures are fictional demonstration data for a public walkthrough.
Keep the solar project connected after the first handoff.
Explore the Red Mesa record, or walk Estimating, GeoLab, Procurement, Project Controls, and Execution with your team.