40. Lenders want to invest in your project but can only do so if they satisfy their credit committees on the risks. Often their advisers are blamed for being overly cautious and pedantic. This is not (entirely) fair. There is no mileage in becoming frustrated by the speed at which lenders (or their advisers) are prepared to move since this is dictated in large measure by the way in which the IPT (in particular) and the preferred bidder have presented the project to them. A coherent set of documents which read together, a robust and well argued audit trail on risk and a sensible framework for and timetable to commercial and financial close will create confidence in the lenders that the IPT and the preferred bidder have a cogent "story to tell" and that - subject to due diligence - the project is bankable. Lenders should have been required to agree in principle the key legal terms and if possible the draft agreement during the evaluation process but if the process has been badly managed then their sign-off will have been more than usually caveated. Disarray and confusion will cause the lenders to be suspect of everything – compounding their already significant technical due diligence requirements with an added layer of scepticism. Manage the process well with your preferred bidder, take advice from your advisers on the bankability (or not) of key risks prior to down-selection and the lenders' requirements will be easier to accommodate.