HomeAboutServicesIndustriesContact

About Northbridge

Built around FP&A, project controls, and reporting automation.

We help growing companies turn scattered financial and project data into forecasts, controls, and reporting routines leadership can use. The founders build and review the work directly.

Operating model

From source data to forecast, control, and management action.

Each engagement starts with a management question and the source data, budget, forecast, workflow, and control points behind it. We trace where the numbers come from, test the assumptions, and identify the point where a decision or handoff breaks down.

We then build the tracker, model, dashboard, SOP, or automated workflow and train the person who will own it. The work is complete when leadership can read the output, the owner can update it, and the next review follows a documented routine.

Leadership

Financial judgment paired with hands-on project controls delivery.

Tim Kovach

Tim Kovach

Co-Founder | CFA Charterholder

Tim is a CFA charterholder and former Senior Wealth Management Associate with 5+ years at Stifel. He supported reporting, onboarding, analytical work, and client-service operations for advisor teams overseeing more than $750M in client assets. At Northbridge, Tim provides senior review across financial statement trends, quantitative models, scenarios, sensitivities, risk assumptions, business cases, and decision analysis. He tests the financial logic behind each recommendation without crossing into regulated investment advice.

View Tim on LinkedIn
Ivan Trendafilov

Ivan Trendafilov

Co-Founder | PMP | Lean Six Sigma Black Belt

Ivan is a PMP, Lean Six Sigma Black Belt, and Microsoft Excel Expert with 3+ years at Deloitte. He supported engagement financial management for federal work totaling more than $45M in contract value. His work covered project budgets, revenue and expense forecasts, EVM, ETC/EAC, pricing and cost inputs, billing and receivables coordination, variance analysis, reconciliations, risk and issue tracking, and executive reporting. At Northbridge, he builds FP&A models, project-control systems, automated reporting workflows, dashboards, PMO controls, SOPs, and documented client handoffs.

View Ivan on LinkedIn

Capability explorer

Start with the work. See the expertise behind it.

Project finance, controls & automation

Forecasts, EACs, controls, and reporting built for project review.

Ivan builds the operating system behind the numbers: project budgets, forecasts, cost and margin views, financial controls, reporting automation, and the documented routine an internal owner runs after handoff.

Leads

  • Driver-based FP&A models, project budgets, and revenue and expense forecasts
  • EVM, ETC/EAC, cost-to-complete, burn rate, utilization, and margin analysis
  • Pricing and cost inputs, billing and receivables coordination, and reconciliations
  • Project controls, risk and issue tracking, PMO reporting, and stakeholder reviews
  • Reporting automation, data validation, dashboards, SOPs, and process redesign

Typical outputs

  • Driver-based FP&A model with source-to-output mapping
  • Project cost tracker with ETC/EAC and action thresholds
  • Automated Excel, Power Query, Power BI, Python, or AI-assisted reporting workflow
  • PMO control pack, dashboard, SOP set, and owner training
$45M+Federal contract value supported through engagement finance and project controls
14 hrs/weekRecurring reporting effort eliminated through workflow automation
$2M+Margin opportunity identified through utilization, burn-rate, and forecast analysis

Tim provides senior review of financial assumptions, scenarios, and decision logic. Ivan owns the build and handoff across project finance, controls, automation, and process work.

Measurement discipline

Every result starts with a baseline.

We reconcile source inputs before calculating variance, margin movement, or forecast exposure.

We separate an identified opportunity from an implemented action and a realized result.

Each engagement ends with a working file, a named owner, and a documented measurement basis.

Representative engagements

Two examples of project finance and controls work.

Client details are anonymized. Each example shows the starting condition, the work product, the action it enabled, and the measurement basis.

Professional ServicesGeorgiaSix weeks

Restoring project-margin visibility for a 35-person services firm.

$40KRecoverable margin identified
01 | Starting point

Project margin was slipping, but budgets, actuals, committed spend, staffing inputs, and forecast assumptions were not reconciled in one project-level view. Leadership could see the decline after the fact but could not isolate the driver.

02 | Objective

Within six weeks, establish one cost and forecast view, explain margin movement by engagement, and create a monthly review an internal finance lead could maintain.

03 | What we built
  • Mapped each engagement to one ID across budget, labor, expense, and commitment files.
  • Reconciled original budget and approved changes to actual spend and open commitments.
  • Reforecast remaining labor and non-labor cost from the current staffing plan and run rate, then built a bridge from baseline margin to the latest forecast.
  • Built a version-controlled tracker and monthly dashboard with variance thresholds, action owners, update instructions, and a guided first refresh.
04 | Outcome

The margin bridge isolated approximately $40,000 in recoverable margin on fixed-fee work and showed the pricing, staffing, and scope items behind it. Leadership had a project-by-project action list. The designated finance lead ran the next monthly review from the new file.

Measurement basis Project budget, actual, commitment, and revised forecast-to-complete reconciliation at the six-week review.

Capabilities FP&A, financial analysis, project controls, management reporting

Engineering ServicesMidwestEight weeks remaining

Finding cost exposure before two active jobs reached close-out.

$95KProjected overruns avoided
01 | Starting point

A regional engineering services firm tracked jobs through invoices paid and budget remaining. Committed spend, burn rate, and forecast-to-complete were missing, so overruns became visible only when most delivery decisions had already been made.

02 | Objective

Create an early-warning view across active jobs, identify cost exposure while management still had room to act, and establish a repeatable cost-review routine for the project lead.

03 | What we built
  • Normalized job and phase budgets, actual labor, non-labor cost, and open commitments to one work-breakdown structure.
  • Calculated weekly burn rate, estimate-to-complete, and forecast-at-completion using the staffed hours and work remaining on the schedule.
  • Linked scope changes and delivery risks to expected cost, then modeled staffing and scope scenarios for the two exposed jobs.
  • Built a threshold-based tracker, risk and action log, and update sequence for the project lead's recurring cost review.
04 | Outcome

The first reporting cycle flagged two jobs trending over budget with eight weeks left on the schedule. Management approved staffing and scope adjustments. The revised forecast-at-completion was approximately $95,000 below the pre-intervention projection before close-out.

Measurement basis Pre-intervention forecast-at-completion compared with the revised delivery plan after approved staffing and scope changes. This is projected cost avoidance, not booked cash savings.

Capabilities Project controls, ETC/EAC, process improvement, financial analysis

Start with the evidence

Show us the report or project view leadership questions today.

We will tell you what we would test first, what the deliverable would be, and how the result should be measured.

Contact Northbridge