Data centers are being built faster and larger than ever before. The surge in AI, cloud adoption, and high-performance computing workloads is pushing owners to deliver not only repeatable white space, but also the complex infrastructure that makes these facilities work: substations, long-lead transformers, medium-voltage distribution, cooling plants, water systems, and the civil work that binds it all together. These are the elements where projects get stuck, budgets spiral, and reputations take the hit. Put simply, you can complete the building and still fail the project. 

Oversight is the key to meeting this moment where scale and speed collide. Independent, real-time construction integrity monitoring is a control strategy for protecting capital, schedule, and credibility.

This article explores key issues that integrity monitors can help data center leadership address, featuring perspectives gathered from several colleagues across CohnReznick’s Government and Public Sector and Assurance practices (plus a CFO in the data center space). Read on, or reach out to start building your integrity monitoring plan.

Data centers’ investor risk blind spot

While data server halls are increasingly standardized, their supporting systems are not. Every site brings different terrain, utility capacity, interconnection requirements, permitting regimes, and community dynamics. Those variables drive lead times (especially for substations and transformers), construction sequencing complexity, and regulatory uncertainty. A misplaced assumption about utility capacity or a late change in water permitting can push commissioning weeks or months, and cost owners materially.

As explains Gerard Frech, an integrity monitoring veteran with decades of large-scale infrastructure experience, the real challenges are rarely in the server halls themselves: “The data center itself is often a cookie-cutter design. The real complexity and risk are in the infrastructure that supports it: power, water, access roads, even permitting.”

Michael Lipari, who has extensive experience auditing large-scale infrastructure and identifying risks early in projects, notes: “Risk often shows up first in the supporting infrastructure – power, utilities, transportation – before you ever see it in the core facility.”

For C-suite and finance leaders, this translates into delayed revenue, cash flow exposures, and even headline risk if communities or regulators object.

What integrity monitoring is – and what it must be

Integrity monitoring is a continuous, independent verification function built into the construction lifecycle. Its role is to confirm that field conditions match contract scope, change orders are authorized and documented, and payment requests reflect verified work – among other functions, as needs dictate.

Not all monitoring is equal. For data center infrastructure to be truly protected, monitoring must be independent, technically deep, and real-time. 

• Independence means reporting directly to the owner or an agreed management body, so findings are objective and actionable. 
• Technical depth requires reviewers who understand substation construction, medium- and high-voltage testing, mechanical cooling systems (including liquid cooling), civil sequencing, and commissioning protocols. 
• Real-time review means contemporaneous verification with evidence and immediate escalation of red flags.

As Lipari adds, oversight only works if it is active while work is in progress: “An audit at the end is too late. Oversight has to happen in real time while the work is being done.” That distinction is critical. An end-of-project audit can only document failure; real-time monitoring helps prevent it.

Small errors, big consequences

The problems uncovered in oversight rarely start as headline-worthy failures. More often, they are small, repetitive errors that quietly accumulate until they become expensive. Examples include:

• Duplicate billing or billing for work not verified in the field
• Change orders processed without approved scope documentation or baseline updates
• Critical commissioning steps skipped or postponed without remediation plans
• Long-lead equipment logged as “delivered” without supporting FAT (factory acceptance test) or site acceptance documentation
• Missing test reports for medium- and high-voltage systems that delay safe energization

Oversight reviews position project leaders to catch these errors before payments go out, avoiding unnecessary costs and schedule disruptions. What looks like paperwork can quickly compound into commissioning delays, inflated change orders, or warranty risks.

Oversight isn’t just for public projects – private owners need it too

There’s a persistent misconception that construction integrity monitoring is only necessary for public projects. (Or, as an imposed safeguard after wrongdoing has occurred.) However, private owners and investors often face an even greater need. Compressed timelines, leaner PMOs, and aggressive ramp targets increase the likelihood that billing and scope discrepancies may slip through. An independent, technically capable monitor provides the critical second view that helps prevent costly rework and protect time-to-service.

While public projects tend to carry more compliance requirements, the financial and reputational risks are no less real in private builds. As one major data center CFO told us, supply chain uncertainty and the entry of “neo-cloud” operators with limited financials and operating histories increase the risk profile.

Emerging pressures: Regulation, communities, and the media

Every build today takes place in the spotlight. Communities and media are quick to scrutinize power consumption, water stress, noise, and visual impacts. Mid-project policy or incentive shifts can further upend a site’s economics.

“When public funding or regulatory attention is involved, the reputational stakes are higher,” Lipari emphasized. “You can’t just meet minimum compliance, you have to exceed it.”

From a municipal perspective, environmental and permitting risks also loom large. Jayme Naberezny, a former municipal manager, explains: “Monitoring identifies risks before they become liabilities or cause harm to the surrounding community.” There is growing pressure around PFAS (“forever chemicals”), stormwater runoff, and other contaminants that can create lasting liabilities for municipalities and owners alike.

In this environment, integrity monitoring serves a larger purpose than invoice reconciliation: It creates a defensible audit trail that supports dialogue with regulators, lenders, and community stakeholders. When questions arise about promises, changes, or compromises, evidence-backed records provide the answer.

What data center CFOs and boards are watching

• Negative press and political pressure tied to power and water use
• Exposure to secondary-market operators (“neo-clouds”) with thin financial histories
• Supply chain constraints and long lead times for substations and specialty cooling equipment
• Inconsistent regulations across jurisdictions that affect incentives or labor availability

Each of these risks maps back to one practical control: accurate, timely verification of what was built versus what was paid for and promised.

The CohnReznick difference: How integrated oversight looks in practice

Effective oversight combines engineering expertise, financial discipline, and proven documentation processes. Our approach to construction integrity monitoring brings together technical review teams (substation, mechanical, and civil) with financial reconciliation specialists, supported by a rigorous reporting cadence tailored for executive decision-making and lender/regulatory review. That combination helps keep capital flowing to verified work, reduce commissioning surprises, and protect reputations.

As Lipari notes, “Internal finance or PMO teams can miss contract scope changes or payment errors because they’re looking at the big picture, not the fine detail.”

Experience confirms that some issues would not have been caught without both technical and financial oversight in play. It’s the combination that prevents small errors from becoming capital drains.

In conclusion: Oversight as ROI

The next wave of data center projects will be bigger, faster, and more exposed than anything the market has already absorbed. Independent, real-time integrity monitoring is a risk-mitigating investment that helps preserve capital, shorten time-to-service, and protect brand value.

Frech sums it up best: “Oversight isn’t about slowing a project down. It’s about making sure that when the ribbon is cut, the thing actually works, and no one is scrambling to fix mistakes.”

Oversight helps ensure that a facility functions from Day 1. In a market where speed and trust are both valuable and scarce, that assurance is indispensable.