Every program director has heard it before a client call: "What's spent on Package 3?" Not what is in the ERP export. Not what procurement thinks committed means. What is funded, what is on PO, what is invoiced, and what labor has hit the package.
EPC finance is never flat. Leadership asks at every level of the hierarchy. How much is committed at the Riverside site? Which vendor is driving spend on Project Espresso? Can we defend invoiced vs PO committed before Thursday?
The question is simple. The answer usually requires four registers, a pivot table, and hope the totals reconcile.
Funding requests, purchase orders, invoices, and timesheets live in different tables and different mental models. Roll-up questions become manual exports, consultant-built reports, or spreadsheets that never quite match.
Generic ERP views rarely mirror the site, building, project, package structure EPC programs actually run on. When categories are siloed and the hierarchy is an afterthought, executives lose confidence when totals do not reconcile across funding, procurement, billing, and labor.
Leadership does not ask for another spreadsheet. They ask for committed and invoiced on a package in the hierarchy the program already uses.
Plathera's financial summary aggregates four money-in-motion categories in one response. Each category has row-level detail and summary totals (count and dollar sum).
Funding requests. Committed funding asks tied to project and package. The ask before money moves.
Purchase orders. Procurement commitments against scope and vendors.
Invoices. Vendor billing, including rows created through inbound email ingestion.
Timesheets. Labor cost tied to project and package context.
Together they answer the commercial controls question: what was asked for, what was committed, what was billed, and what labor has landed on the package.
The financial summary view uses cascading filters that mirror the live program model:
| Filter | Role |
|---|---|
| Site | Top-level program geography or campus scope |
| Building | Narrows to structures within the selected site |
| Project | Scopes to a capital project within the building |
| Package | Package-level committed vs invoiced view |
| Company | Vendor or subcontractor spend visibility |
Select a site and building options narrow. Select a project and package options narrow. Each change refetches totals so the cards and charts always reflect the scope in front of the reviewer.
The UI calls GET /api/financial-summary with query parameters for site, building, project, package, and company. The server runs parallel queries joining funding emails, purchase orders, invoices, and timesheets through projects, buildings, sites, packages, and companies.
Summary cards and charts update as filters change. The same aggregation powers the web view and the data the EPC Assistant uses when generating a financial summary HTML report. One model, not four disconnected exports.
The live view supports export for offline review and status meetings. A package lead can scope to Package 14, export the breakdown, and walk into a weekly client call with defensible totals.
The EPC Assistant can answer without manual SQL:
Generate a financial summary report for Project Espresso including funding, POs, invoices, and timesheets.Or compare at site level:
What's the total invoiced amount vs PO value for packages on the Riverside site?Formal PDF executive packs may still be on the roadmap; the live summary and assistant-generated HTML reports are the inspectable surface today.
Leadership does not ask for a spreadsheet. They ask what is committed and what is invoiced on a package. The financial summary should answer in the hierarchy the program already uses.
Worth a conversation if your program still rebuilds financial roll-ups by hand before every executive review.
Site narrows building, building narrows project, and project narrows package. An optional company filter scopes subcontractor spend. Each selection refetches totals for funding, POs, invoices, and timesheets at that level.
Funding requests, purchase orders, invoices, and timesheets, each with row lists and per-category count and dollar totals.
Yes. The assistant uses the same aggregation as the financial summary view and can produce an HTML financial summary report for a named project or filter scope.