The Recovery and Resilience Facility is entering its final execution phase. For companies and project owners, the central issue is no longer the headline size of the programme, but whether milestones, payment timing and private liquidity are aligned well enough to turn an allocation into an executable investment.

The European Commission reported on 6 November that around EUR 450 billion in RRF grants and loans had been disbursed. It was assessing 32 final payment requests, with EUR 123 billion of the envelope still due to be disbursed by the end of 2026.

Those figures describe the scale and timing of the public programme. They do not mean that EUR 123 billion is freely available to companies. RRF funds move through Member State plans, milestones, targets and national implementation arrangements. A corporate project remains exposed to its own procurement, delivery, reporting and financing sequence.

That distinction matters because an approved project can still encounter a liquidity problem.

Three clocks must run together

The first clock is the public programme. It governs milestones, evidence, payment requests and the final timetable. The second is the operating project: contracts, equipment, construction, staffing and commissioning rarely move at exactly the same pace as administrative validation. The third is the capital structure: suppliers, lenders and shareholders require cash according to contractual dates, not when a public reimbursement eventually arrives.

The financing problem appears when those clocks separate. A company may have an eligible investment and a credible long-term case, yet still face a temporary cash deficit because expenditure comes before reimbursement. Conversely, arranging a large bridge without testing milestone certainty can convert an administrative delay into a leverage or covenant problem.

The last mile is an evidence problem

In the final phase, project quality is necessary but insufficient. Financeability depends on whether the evidence chain can survive scrutiny: the identity of the beneficiary, eligible expenditure, procurement records, delivery certificates, permits, audit trails and the link between a project milestone and a payment request.

Boards should avoid treating these items as a closing checklist assembled after money has been spent. They belong in the financing model from the start. A useful cash-flow forecast distinguishes committed expenditure, eligible expenditure, submitted claims, validated milestones and cash actually received. These are different states.

Bridge liquidity should follow the risk allocation

A working-capital line, shareholder loan, capex facility or other bridge can be useful, but the structure should reflect who carries delay and performance risk. The relevant questions include the maximum funding gap, the evidence required for drawdown, the maturity buffer after the expected public payment, the treatment of cost overruns and the consequence of a milestone being rejected or deferred.

The point is not to assume failure. It is to prevent a short timing mismatch from becoming a strategic financing event.

What decision-makers should test now

First, reconcile the public-project calendar with the contractual payment schedule. Second, identify which milestones are within management control and which depend on public bodies or third parties. Third, model a delayed-payment case without assuming that every cost remains eligible. Fourth, preserve a financing alternative before the project becomes urgent.

Public support can improve project economics, but it does not replace liquidity planning, credit analysis or execution discipline. The final RRF phase will reward projects whose evidence, operating plan and capital structure tell the same story.

How CGPH supports execution readiness

CGPH Banque d'affaires supports companies and shareholders with financial strategy, business-plan review, capital-structure assessment, financing-process preparation and coordination within an agreed mandate. Eligibility, procurement, legal, tax, accounting and public-aid advice remain with the relevant authorities and qualified professionals.

Related CGPH resources

Sources

This article is for general information only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, regulatory, public-aid, procurement or financing advice, and it does not determine project eligibility or funding availability. Information is stated as of 9 November 2026 and may change. Readers should consult the official programme documents and obtain appropriate independent advice.