All Posts

Capital for infrastructure is not, in the end, scarce — credibility is. Lenders price the risk they perceive, and a project that presents transparent risk allocation, defensible assumptions, and predictable cashflow lowers that perception, and with it the cost of capital. Competitive terms follow credible structure, not the other way round. The discipline is to make a case a lender can believe: a model that withstands forensic review, a risk matrix that survives due diligence

An infrastructure project can be entirely buildable and still fail to attract finance. Engineering feasibility asks whether a thing can be built; bankability asks whether its cashflows, risk allocation, and whole-life costs will satisfy a lender. They are different tests, set by different people, and a clear ‘yes’ to the first does not imply a ‘yes' to the second. The gap between them is where many promising projects stall — a sound design wrapped around an unfinanceable stru

A published evaluation matrix is the real brief for any infrastructure tender, yet most bids are written as prose to be read rather than as evidence to be scored. Evaluation panels do not read; they score, criterion by criterion, against published weightings — and, in practice, against the way those criteria are interpreted in the room. A tender written to the matrix puts the evidence exactly where the marks are, in clear and evaluable English, and leaves nothing for the pane

A Public-Private Partnership is usually won or lost long before a bidder opens the documentation. The work that decides the outcome is early, unglamorous, and easy to skip — which is exactly why it is worth doing. David Crowley, CEO · March 2026 · 6 min read There is a comfortable assumption in infrastructure procurement: that a Public-Private Partnership succeeds on the strength of its bid — the polish, the renderings, the launch. The evidence points elsewhere. Closing a