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