{"id":107072,"date":"2024-08-22T15:49:37","date_gmt":"2024-08-22T19:49:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/\/?p=107072"},"modified":"2024-08-22T15:49:37","modified_gmt":"2024-08-22T19:49:37","slug":"top-4-causes-of-third-party-owner-tpo-rejections-and-how-to-avoid-them","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/\/2024\/08\/top-4-causes-of-third-party-owner-tpo-rejections-and-how-to-avoid-them\/","title":{"rendered":"Top 4 Causes of Third Party Owner (TPO) Rejections – And How to Avoid Them"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
Takeaway:<\/strong> Remote-only tools have inherent accuracy issues. These lead to financing rejections or delays due to improper shade analysis, production estimate deltas, missing internal information, or inconsistent site data. Contractors that leverage drones and mobile apps fix this issue, especially if done presale because they deliver objective, real-time, on-site data that cannot be manipulated.<\/p>\n Lease financing providers (called Third Party Owners or TPOs) require a variety of data to issue milestone payments.<\/p>\n While initial estimates are often enough to get a project started, any errors or omissions need to be trued up; if they aren\u2019t, TPOs may reject a submission and kick more work back to the Contractor.<\/p>\n Rejections are most common in situations where Contractors over-rely on remote imagery-based analysis for shading and where site data might be missing or incomplete\u2014here are the top four reasons for TPO rejections and how to avoid them.<\/p>\n Shading analysis issues are the most common reason for rejections \u2014 40% of rejections are tied to shading. This occurs because TPOs are mindful of maintaining production and offset, so forecasting the actual system performance as closely as possible is essential for project economics.<\/p>\n Shade-related rejections often occur from incorrectly modeling parts of a scene:<\/p>\n For a historical context on the arc of shade tools, the residential solar industry in the early 2000s leveraged physical shading devices<\/a>, like the Solmetric SunEye, that were accurate if operated properly but were cumbersome to use. As a result, Surveyors sought alternatives; improvements in satellite imagery made it possible to use remote data.<\/p>\n Over time, it has become clear that remote data are not as accurate due to image graininess and outdatedness: roughly one-third of satellite imagery-based shading studies are off by >10% from the reality of the site. Further, nearly all (92%) of surveyors say<\/a> they have to manually verify satellite images<\/a>. Because remote design tools are mostly 2D, PV system Designers need to scale the house, obstructions, and surrounding environment manually. This is a fairly subjective process using best guesses for the size of property details and is the biggest contributor to shading TPO rejections.<\/p>\n In the 2020s, further improvements were developed: Scanifly\u2019s drone and photogrammetry-based tool quickly became the \u201cnew SunEye<\/a>.\u201d Its shade tools are approved by all major state regulators and finance companies.<\/p>\n Shading can now be comprehensive and fully accurate using real-time drone data.<\/p>\n From a TPO perspective, the issue is fitment and correct module placement in between the initial agreement (Milestone 1 of 3) and array installation (Milestone 2 of 3). If Contractors get approved on the initial plan but install something different (ie change order), the entire contract could be changed after installation or commissioning (Milestone 3)<\/p>\n Drone and photogrammetry-based models, on the other hand, produce 100% fitment\u2014just ask Contractors like Dynamic SLR<\/a> and Namaste Solar<\/a>, who no longer have layout accuracy revisions.<\/p>\n Download<\/a> our free ebook on how to eliminate TPO financing rejections!<\/p><\/div>\n Without a proper internal survey<\/a>, especially a comprehensive structural and electrical analysis, a lot of details can be missed.<\/p>\n Pre-install issues<\/strong> tend to be process or information-related, such as:<\/p>\n Issues spotted early in the process can be fixed, though this may result in expensive change orders, additional truck rolls, and deal delays that will likely impact overall contract value and Rep commission.<\/p>\n Post-installation<\/strong> problems are typically more hardware-related:<\/p>\n If issues are spotted after<\/em> installation, the lease provider may hold out on Milestone 2 or 3 payments until the issue has been addressed. This means Contractors have to both carry the cost of the project and the cost of any fixes.<\/p>\n The better path is to avoid <\/em>a situation where you miss details. This is where documentation tools like Scanifly Mobile<\/a> are incredibly valuable\u2014not only does it include best-practice checklists (so you don\u2019t forget to collect anything), it centralizes all data so nothing is lost in translation between Surveyors and Designers.<\/p>\n If you\u2019re collecting data manually, chances are you may occasionally or generally take shortcuts and use overly conservative estimates to compensate for potential errors\u2014in all cases, you\u2019re only getting \u201caccurate enough<\/a>\u201d data.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
1. Incorrect or missing shade analysis<\/h4>\n
\n
2. Inaccurate production estimates<\/h4>\n
\nEven with good shading analysis, production estimates can be inaccurate if roof measurements are incorrect. For instance, if you don\u2019t properly measure tight spaces or roof obstructions<\/a>, you could end up with a different size array than initially promised.<\/p>\n<\/a>
3. Missing details on hardware or other internal data<\/h4>\n
\n
\n
4. Inconsistent or incomplete site data<\/h3>\n