Private equity and portfolios
Due diligence checklist for acquiring an A/E firm
By SourceX Editorial · Reviewed by Noah Loul ·
Short answer
A due diligence checklist for acquiring an architecture or engineering firm should cover project financials, contracts, licensure, professional liability, people and systems. Add the section most lists skip: who owns drawings and project records, whether systems export with history, where the archive physically sits, and whether client contracts restrict AI use of project data.
Key takeaways
- Review project-level financials from the time and billing system, not only firm-level statements.
- Read the contract forms the firm actually signed, because ownership of drawings and use restrictions vary by client.
- Confirm that licensed principals, firm registrations and stamp authority continue after the deal.
- Map every archive location before closing, including files on personal drives and retired servers.
- Search client contracts for AI and data-use clauses so restrictions are known before integration.
What should an A/E due diligence checklist cover?#
An A/E due diligence checklist should cover seven areas: financials and work in progress, contracts, licensure, professional liability, people, clients and backlog, and systems with their archives. The table lists what to request in each area and the red flags that usually change price, structure or the integration plan.
Operating partners at AEC platforms tend to run the first six well because advisers have templates for them. The seventh area, systems and archives, is often reduced to a software list, which is where data rights problems hide.
| Area | What to request | Red flags |
|---|---|---|
| Financials and WIP | Project reports from Deltek Vantagepoint, Ajera or BQE Core; WIP, unbilled, backlog and write-offs by project | Margins visible only at firm level; large unbilled balances on old phases |
| Contracts | MSAs, task orders, industry standard forms used, subconsultant agreements | Anti-assignment or change-of-control clauses on key clients; uncapped indemnities |
| Licensure | Principals' professional licenses, firm registrations or certificates of authorization by state, responsible-charge arrangements | One principal stamps most work; registrations tied to a departing owner |
| Professional liability | Claims history, open claims, current claims-made policy, prior-acts and extended reporting (tail) options | Claims clustered in one service line; no plan for prior-acts coverage after closing |
| People | Org chart, PM bench, retention and non-compete terms | Key project managers not covered by retention |
| Clients and backlog | Revenue by client, contract vehicles, renewal dates | Backlog dependent on one public-sector vehicle near expiry |
| Systems and archives | System list, archive locations, export capability, data-use terms | Closed projects stored on personal accounts or unsupported servers |
Contracts and professional liability: what to read closely#
Contract review in an A/E deal should focus on the forms the firm actually signed rather than the template it prefers. Many firms use industry standard owner-architect or owner-engineer forms for private clients, sign client-written MSAs for institutional and corporate clients, and accept agency terms on public work. Each can treat ownership of drawings, confidentiality and assignment differently.
Read for standard of care, limitation of liability, indemnity, assignment and change of control, ownership of instruments of service, and record retention. Pair the contract review with the claims history, because a pattern of claims in one service line often traces back to contract terms accepted in that line.
Ask the broker how prior-acts coverage will work after closing, because claims on closed projects can arrive years after completion and the deal structure affects which policy responds. Treat these answers as inputs for counsel and the broker, not conclusions; contract terms and state rules differ.
The section most checklists miss: data rights, exports and archive custody#
Data rights diligence asks who owns and controls the firm's drawings, models and project records, whether they can be exported intact, and who physically holds them. These questions decide whether the platform can integrate the firm's history, defend future claims with it and, if it chooses, license internal workflow records later.
A useful vocabulary for documenting answers comes from the Data & Trust Alliance's Data Provenance Standards, which group dataset metadata into Source, Provenance and Use. The Use group includes elements such as consent documentation location, license to use, intended data use, and copyright, patent and trademark status, which map well to archive notes.
| Item | Question to answer | Where to look |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership of drawings and models | Who owns instruments of service under each contract form, and what license does the client hold? | Contract forms, MSA IP clauses, amendments |
| Client data-use restrictions | Do contracts limit reuse, sharing or AI use of project information? | Confidentiality clauses, NDAs, recent MSA updates |
| Archive custody | Where do closed-project files live: servers, NAS, cloud drives, personal accounts, offsite boxes? | IT inventory, interviews with principals and PMs |
| System exports | Can project, document and markup history be exported with dates, authors and links? | Admin consoles, vendor terms for Deltek, BQE, Procore, Bluebeam |
| Retention obligations | What must be kept, for how long, and under which legal holds? | Contracts, insurer guidance, counsel |
| Prior data sharing | Has the firm licensed or shared project data with any third party before? | Vendor agreements, research partnerships, software terms |
AI clauses to look for in client contracts#
AI clauses are newer contract terms that restrict how a design firm may use client project information with AI tools or for training. They appear in client-written MSAs, renewals and amendments more often than in older standard forms, so check recent paperwork for each major client.
Whether a given use is permitted is decided contract by contract with counsel. The goal in diligence is to know which clients have which restrictions, so the integration team can tag those projects in the archive.
- Prohibitions on using project information to train or improve machine learning models.
- Restrictions on uploading drawings, specifications or correspondence to third-party AI tools.
- Confidentiality obligations that survive project completion without an end date.
- Return-or-destroy obligations for client data at project close.
- Client approval requirements for reusing project content in marketing, research or other work.
Illustrative: a platform's diligence on a structural engineering firm#
Illustrative: a fictional PE-backed AEC platform is acquiring a structural engineering firm that runs Deltek Ajera for time and billing, keeps Revit models on an on-premise file server, reviews shop drawings in Bluebeam Studio, and tracks RFIs in Procore on larger jobs. Older projects sit on a founding principal's personal cloud drive.
Diligence finds that most private-client contracts leave the firm owning its instruments of service, but some public-sector contracts transfer ownership to the agency. One institutional client's recent MSA amendment prohibits using its project information to train AI models. The personal drive holds the only copy of several closed projects.
The platform makes transfer of the personal drive to company storage a closing deliverable, adds the client restrictions to an archive inventory that tags each project by contract terms, and asks for representations covering IP ownership and compliance with client confidentiality. After closing, integration starts from a clean archive map instead of a server migration guess.
Document request list for the data and archive section#
The document request list below covers the data and archive section and can be added to a standard diligence request without slowing the deal. Before signing, descriptions and contract copies are enough; transfers of the archive itself belong in closing deliverables and the integration plan.
- A list of every system holding project, time, document, markup or correspondence records, with the years each covers.
- A map of archive locations, including personal accounts, external drives and offsite storage.
- Copies of each contract form in use, plus client-written MSAs for the largest clients.
- Any agreement under which the firm shared or licensed project data with a third party.
- The firm's record retention policy and any active legal holds.
- Vendor terms covering data export and access after a subscription ends.
How SourceX approaches A/E records after a deal#
SourceX does not run M&A diligence, but the archive work above is what a later licensing review relies on. After closing, SourceX applies the SourceX five-step transaction, Supply, Rights, Preparation, Approval and Delivery, to the acquired firm as its own supplier.
Licensable scope in A/E firms usually centers on internal workflow records, such as RFI reasoning, review comments and QA/QC history, rather than client deliverables. A SourceX Evidence Packet records provenance, licensing rights, permitted use, the privacy record and release authorization for anything that proceeds.
Frequently asked questions
Does an asset deal or a stock deal change who owns the archive?
It can. In a stock purchase the firm's entity continues, so its records and contracts stay where they were. In an asset purchase, the agreement should list the records, files and IP being transferred, and some client contracts may need consent to assign. Counsel should confirm the treatment for the specific structure.
Should data rights be covered in the purchase agreement?
Usually yes. Buyers commonly seek representations on IP ownership, data protection and compliance with client confidentiality terms, plus a covenant to deliver archives in company control. The exact scope, survival and remedies are negotiated with counsel and often interact with any representations and warranties insurance.
How far back should the archive review go?
There is no single rule. The review period is driven by professional liability exposure, contractual retention obligations and how far back usable history exists. Start by locating everything, then let counsel and the insurer advise what must be retained and what the platform wants to keep for operations.
What if key files live on a principal's personal accounts?
Make transfer to company-controlled storage a closing deliverable, with a written confirmation from the principal and IT. Personal accounts create custody gaps for claims defense and can leave the firm without its own history if the principal departs after an earnout.
Do these checks matter if the platform never plans to license data?
Yes. The same checks protect claims defense, client confidentiality and integration. Knowing which projects carry AI or data-use restrictions also keeps the platform's own internal AI tools from breaching a client contract.
Sources
- The Data & Trust Alliance's Data Provenance Standards (version 1.0.0 specification) define dataset metadata in three groups: Source, Provenance and Use. Source
- The Use group of the Data & Trust Alliance Data Provenance Standards includes elements for confidentiality classification, consent documentation location, privacy-enhancing technologies applied, allowed and excluded processing and storage geographies, license to use, intended data use, and copyright, patent and trademark status. Source
Related resources
- QuestionHow are data licensing payments made?
- InsightClosing an architecture firm: records, clients and licenses checklist
- InsightAP automation and procurement software vendors: licensing invoice data
- InsightConstruction software companies: what project data you can and cannot license
- QuestionWho owns enterprise data?
- IndustryBPO & contact centers data
See if your company qualifies
A short company assessment. No data uploads are needed.