Most infrastructure feasibility studies are not bankable. They are submitted to development finance institutions, sovereign guarantors, and infrastructure funds — and they fail at appraisal. Not because the underlying project is wrong. Because the study was not written to the standard a lender requires.
What a DFI Credit Committee Actually Reads
A development finance institution appraisal team is not reading your feasibility study to understand the project. They are reading it to find the assumptions they do not trust. Their job is to identify the conditions under which your project fails — and determine whether the risk is acceptable. A bankable feasibility study is one that survives that process. It anticipates the challenge, documents its methodology, and presents uncertainty honestly rather than optimistically.
The Six Pillars of a Bankable Study
A bankable feasibility study addresses six analytical dimensions without exception: (1) Market demand — documented with primary and secondary data, not assumed from macro trends. (2) Technical viability — engineering methodology and technology selection rationale, not a summary of the contractor's proposal. (3) Financial model — a full DCF with DSCR, IRR, gearing, and sensitivity analysis across at minimum three scenarios. (4) Environmental and social — IFC Performance Standards aligned, not a compliance appendix. (5) Risk register — country, sector, and project-level risks with likelihood, impact, mitigation, and residual risk ratings. (6) Implementation plan — credible construction phasing, commissioning milestones, and ramp-up assumptions.
The Most Common Failure Mode
The most common reason a feasibility study fails DFI appraisal is not missing data. It is undisclosed assumptions. When a demand projection relies on a growth rate with no source, or a financial model runs a single scenario with no sensitivity, the appraisal team stops trusting the document. Once trust is lost, the entire study is suspect — not just the questionable section. A bankable study makes every assumption visible, names every source, and treats sensitivity analysis as a core output, not an afterthought.
What This Means for Your Engagement
If your feasibility study will be presented to AfDB, IFC, World Bank, or a commercial DFI co-lending with a multilateral, it must meet this standard from the outset. A study written to a lower standard and upgraded later is rarely convincing — appraisal committees can identify retrofitted methodology. Evolve produces feasibility studies to Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS) standard by default.
Kaamil Buckas, CA(SA)
Founding Partner — Evolve Business Consultants
Related Questions
What is the difference between a bankable and non-bankable feasibility study?
A bankable feasibility study meets the appraisal standard of a development finance institution — documented methodology, disclosed assumptions, IFC-aligned environmental and social assessment, multi-scenario financial model, and a credible risk register. A non-bankable study typically lacks one or more of these dimensions and cannot serve as the primary analytical input for a DFI credit decision.
How long does it take to produce a bankable feasibility study?
A full Bankable Feasibility Study for a large infrastructure project typically requires 3–6 months, depending on data availability, stakeholder access, and technical complexity. Pre-Feasibility Studies can be completed in 6–10 weeks but do not meet the standard required for DFI commitment.
What IFC Performance Standards apply to infrastructure feasibility studies?
The IFC Performance Standards most relevant to infrastructure feasibility are PS1 (Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks), PS2 (Labour and Working Conditions), PS3 (Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention), PS5 (Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement), and PS6 (Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources). The applicable standards depend on the sector and project location.
Can an existing feasibility study be upgraded to bankable standard?
Sometimes, but it depends on how the original study was conducted. Studies with undisclosed methodology or missing primary data are difficult to upgrade credibly — appraisal committees can identify retrofitted analytical work. A full gap assessment is required before committing to an upgrade path.
This question applies to your project?
Book a 30-minute call with Kaamil directly. The Partner takes the first call.