McCarthy and RWE
How a Shared Solar Design Platform Transformed the Developer–EPC Relationship
CASE STUDY
In utility-scale solar, the developer and the EPC often operate in parallel universes. The developer handles land, permitting, and early conceptual layout. The EPC handles detailed engineering, procurement, and construction. The handoff between these two worlds is where projects face timing and cost risks.
The right solar design software bridges this gap. It enables both organizations to work in the same environment, using a shared language for design decisions. Software as a turnkey solution for interoperability ensures earlier, easier decision-making.
.jpg)
The Challenge
Despite their strong relationship, RWE and McCarthy were limited by the same tooling gap that the broader industry faces. RWE’s development engineering team needed fast, accurate layouts for sites at every stage, from greenfield conceptual design through 30% evaluation, but web-based tools couldn’t deliver the granularity needed for credible cost estimation. CAD-based tools could, but not at the speed the development timeline demanded.
“You can wire things up however you want, but at the end of the day, you need to design according to what’s actually available out there. PVFARM is the only platform I’ve seen that’s made it possible for us. All these topologies were created with those products in mind; it actually makes it possible to design something that’s ultimately buildable.”
The Solution
RWE and McCarthy both implemented PVFARM’s web-based solar design platform. The adoption wasn’t a top-down corporate mandate, but grew organically from a workshop RWE organized with McCarthy to better understand what was missing from initial designs. In that meeting, McCarthy introduced RWE to PVFARM.
.jpg)
Results
%20(1).jpg)
Better collaboration and knowledge transfer with their EPC partner, including shared catalogs and design objects that eliminated file format friction.
Faster layouts with saved catalogs and reusable design objects, enabling quicker turnarounds from project to project.
Quick and easy modifications to inclusions, exclusions, and boundary changes — iterations that used to require CAD reprocessing.
%20(1).jpg)
Multiple percentage points of improved LCOE or IRR through better directional cost decisions made early in design progression.
Reduced rework and downstream design changes by surfacing grading risks, DC wiring complexity, and pile sizing challenges before they become expensive problems.
Ability to evaluate more design scenarios for the same number of projects, rather than being locked into a single layout path.
One of the most compelling benefits of the RWE, McCarthy, PVFARM collaboration isn’t about the projects they built. It’s about the ones they didn’t.
By working with PVFARM early in the development cycle, both companies have been able to identify insurmountable design challenges before committing significant resources. A project that looks viable on paper might reveal serious grading problems, DC collection constraints, or other risk factors once modeled at a granular level in PVFARM.
Final Thoughts
In utility-scale solar, the gap between developer and EPC is one of the industry’s most persistent sources of inefficiency, risk, and rework. The tools available to each side have historically reinforced that gap: fast-but-inaccurate web tools for developers, precise-but-slow CAD tools for EPCs, and no shared language between them.
The RWE–McCarthy partnership shows what happens when both sides adopt a shared design platform. The relationship shifts from file exchanges and handoffs to real-time collaboration and shared decision-making. Design decisions that used to surface late in the process (creating rework, cost surprises, and timeline compression) get made early, when they’re cheapest to change and most impactful to get right.
The platform isn’t just a tool for individual companies. It’s becoming the shared infrastructure for how the developer–EPC relationship works.
.png)
.png)
.svg)
