Inkers
Case Study · Commercial

How a tech park reduced tenant fit-out delays and avoided major modification risk

A multi-tower IT/Tech Park where shell-and-core decisions, MEP capacity, and tenant fit-out clashes were validated upstream — closing 36 months of cumulative occupancy risk and ₹10–18 Cr of late modifications.

Powered by Kael
Glazed facade of a Grade-A office tower at dusk

36 mo

Tenant fit-out delay closed

₹10–18 Cr

Modifications & change orders avoided

10 lakh sq ft

Shell & core, common areas

Project Brief

Type

IT/Tech Park, Multi-tower

Scale

10,00,000 Sq Ft

Cost

₹350 Crore

Shell & Core, Common Areas

The brief

A Grade-A IT/Tech park spans five towers and 10 lakh sq ft of leasable area. The shell-and-core programme had to land on a fixed go-live so anchor tenants could start fit-out without overlap with base-build trades. Anything that slipped past shop-drawing freeze meant on-floor rework, lease deferrals, and penalty clauses.

Why it was risky

Tech parks are the canonical multi-trade build. Structural grids, MEP risers, and core compliance interact with tenant fit-out programmes that arrive in parallel — often from three or four different design teams.

  • Structural rigidness: the published grid restricted workstation densities for the largest anchor tenant.
  • MEP capacity gaps: the original HVAC and electrical sizing was tuned to legacy office loads, not modern IT density.
  • Access bottlenecks: lift count and egress widths were close to the statutory floor — any late change risked an approval reset.
  • Fit-out conflicts: ceiling heights and service routes were sized for the base-build, not for tenant design intent.

What Kaël did

Kaël collapsed the timeline between design intent and site decision by running the numbers continuously, every time a drawing or a tenant brief changed.

  • Tenant planning simulations ran workstation density studies against the structural grid four months ahead of any tenant signing, surfacing dead-zone risk by floor.
  • MEP load analysis compared the design submittals against realistic IT loads — peak, off-peak, and 24×7 operations — and flagged under-provisioning before equipment was procured.
  • Compliance checks ran on every revision, keeping parking ratios, lift counts, and refuge widths inside the statutory band.
  • Auto-clash detection matched tenant fit-out drawings against the base-build model the day they arrived, so changes were costed in days, not months.

Outcome

Anchor tenants moved into fit-out windows without slippage. Cumulative tenant fit-out delay risk — assessed at 36 months across the five towers — was closed out before commissioning began, and ₹10–18 Cr of late modifications was taken off the change-order register.

Impact

36 Months

Delay in tenant fit-out and occupancy

₹10–18 Cr

Additional cost (3–5%) in modifications and change orders

Construction is changing. Are you?

We work closely with every client to understand the specific project before anything else. Tell us what you're building.