Six reasons a techno-economic study comes back from the bank or the AAPI

1. A "rejected" study: who sent it back, and why?

Start with who sent it back, and in what written form. A file returned by the AAPI single window (guichet unique) and a file returned by a bank branch do not follow the same rules, and do not call for the same response.

Then separate three situations that project owners lump together under the word "rejection".

The six reasons below follow the order in which they arise during processing. Each one is tied to the text or document list it rests on. How often each one occurs is based on our own practice: as far as we know, no public statistics on rejected files exist.

2. Is the file complete, and are its documents still valid?

This is the most common reason in the files we take over, and the easiest to avoid. The file fails the admissibility check, and the study is not even read.

The document lists published by the banks set a validity period for several items. Banque Nationale d'Algérie asks for a tax roll extract "less than three (03) months old", CNAS and CASNOS certificates "currently valid", and pro forma invoices or purchase contracts that are "recent (less than three (03) months old)". Crédit Populaire d'Algérie also requires tax and social-security clearance documents less than three months old.

In our experience, the trap is timing: a study that takes six weeks makes the documents gathered at the start expire. We ask for certificates and pro forma invoices at the end, not at the start.

3. Does the study follow the Annex V template?

For economic land, the format is not free. Article 6 of Decree No. 23-487, as worded by Executive Decree No. 26-154 of 14 April 2026, requires a study "duly prepared by a qualified professional, in accordance with the template in Annex (V)".

The template has nine parts, in a fixed order. A good-quality study built like a business plan does not comply with it. The check is all the faster because the order of the parts is imposed: a reviewer only has to look for Part VI or Part VII to see whether it exists.

The fix is mechanical, provided you have the material: rework the study in the order of the nine parts, without skipping any. Each part is described in our article on the official template, and the difference between the three documents people confuse is explained in feasibility study, techno-economic study or business plan.

4. Does the declared information match the documents?

This is the least understood reason. On the AAPI platform, the applicant declares information: investment amount, jobs, capital contributions, integration rate. The study and the attached documents must confirm it.

Article 7 of Decree No. 23-487, as rewritten by Decree No. 26-154, shortlists only projects "whose declared information has been examined and found consistent with the documents listed in Article 6", using examination and evaluation sheets. A gap between the declaration and the study therefore takes the file off the list, whatever its score.

The same rule applies at the bank, with no text imposing it: BNA asks for pro forma invoices "supporting each item of the investment structure". In our experience, a single figure that changes from one document to the next is enough for the whole file to be reread with suspicion.

5. Is the equity contribution proven?

Announcing a contribution is not enough. The same Article 6 requires "proof of financial capacity for the equity contributions declared to finance the project, in particular the bank account statement, the financial statements or any other document capable of establishing the applicant's solvency".

The list is open, but the aim is clear: to establish solvency. A sworn statement or a contribution "being raised" does not establish it. Nor does a contribution in kind until it has been valued: BNA requires, for any contribution in kind, an "appraisal by an approved expert".

The fix takes time, which is why it is prepared before the study: account statements in the name of the project owner or the company, balance sheets for the last financial years, a valuation report for contributions in kind. What the bank expects as a contribution is covered in the personal contribution required by the bank.

6. Does the project fall within the top three score levels?

Here the study is not rejected: the project is ranked behind others. AAPI processing is digital. The evaluation grid in Annex I scores the project, matches it against the requested plot, and ranks applications in descending order of score.

Only projects ranked within the top three score levels are shortlisted and submitted, anonymously, to the board of directors. Outside those three levels, the board never examines the file. The criteria and their weightings are set out in our article on the evaluation grid.

Investors who are not selected are informed through the investor's digital platform when the provisional decision is issued. Two routes then remain open. The first is to challenge the decision, in two stages set by Presidential Decree No. 22-296 of 4 September 2022.

The provisional decision only becomes final once these time limits have expired. The decree does not say what the Agency's silence beyond fifteen days means. The second route is a new application, for the same plot or another one, with a better-scored project. The full procedure is described in the economic land procedure.

7. At the bank, do the forecast horizon and repayment capacity hold up?

At the bank, the study is only one document in the risk file. It most often comes back for a formal reason: a horizon that is too short. CPA wants forecast balance sheets and income statements "over the loan period", BNA forecast balance sheets "over the term of the loan requested". A study that complies with the template over three years does not cover a seven-year loan.

It also comes back when repayment capacity is not shown. A forecast that stops at net profit, with no cash flow from operations compared with the annual debt service, leaves the analyst to redo the calculation with his own assumptions. The lines he reads are detailed in the five-year forecast income statement.

Finally, the refusal may have nothing to do with the study: a classified debt, an entry in the Central Risk Register, collateral judged insufficient. Reworking the study will change nothing in that case. That diagnosis is the subject of our article on loan refusals.

8. What should you do when the study comes back?

In this order, and without rushing to file again.

1. Get the reason in writing. A platform notification, a letter from the branch, a list of missing items. Without a written reason, you are correcting blindly.
2. Match the reason to one of the six above. The first three are fixed on the file; the fourth takes time; the fifth calls for an appeal or a new project; the sixth may have nothing to do with the study.
3. Correct every related document, not just the one cited. An amount changed in the study must also be changed in the declaration, the financing plan and the pro forma invoices.
4. Check the validity dates of the documents before filing again.
5. File a complete file, since that is when the time limits start to run.

In our experience, a study reworked after being returned rarely costs less than a study done properly the first time: you first have to understand what the previous author assumed. On the cost of a study, see the price of a techno-economic study.

This article presents the texts and document lists cited, along with a reading grid drawn from our practice; it is not legal advice, investment advice, or a guarantee of obtaining financing or economic land. Appeal time limits and bank requirements may change: check them in the Official Journal and with the recipient before taking any step.

FAQ — Frequently asked questions

BENSAID Farouk

Financial & Economic Research Consultant — ProfitPilot NextGen Consulting

Certified sole trader and expert in financial studies, risk analysis and market research for SMEs, startups and investors in Algeria. View full profile