For direct lenders and commercial banks financing GovCon businesses. When your borrower is on Arcvue, the covenant metrics you need are updated nightly from their ERP—not assembled by whoever is currently in the controller seat and delivered 60 days after quarter end.
Every lender managing a GovCon credit portfolio knows the experience. The quarterly covenant package arrives 45 to 60 days after quarter end—if it arrives on schedule at all. The numbers are formatted differently than last quarter because the controller turned over. The EBITDA figure may or may not include the add-backs your credit agreement specifies. The leverage calculation may or may not exclude revolver principal the way your covenant definition requires. You spend a week reconciling it before you trust it, and by then you're looking at financial data that's already three months stale.
The covenant that was drifting was visible in the data throughout the quarter. Nobody saw it until the borrower disclosed it—or until it breached and the conversation shifted from relationship management to workout. By then the options are fewer and the costs are higher. The early warning that would have allowed a proactive amendment conversation simply didn't exist because the visibility didn't exist.
The better lenders know which borrowers in their portfolio run their businesses with institutional discipline and which ones are managing by gut feel with a controller who owns the numbers. That distinction shows up in how calls go, how amendments get negotiated, and how credits perform over the hold period. A borrower on Arcvue is a categorically different relationship—not because the underlying business is different, but because the financial transparency is.
When your borrower is on Arcvue, DSCR and leverage are computed nightly from actual ERP data—not from a model the controller builds when the quarterly certificate is due. The EBITDA figure uses your bank-approved add-backs: owner compensation normalization, one-time transaction costs, D&A, and any other items your credit agreement specifies. The leverage calculation excludes revolver principal if your covenant definition requires it. The numbers follow your definitions, not the borrower's approximation of them.
Configurable lender access lets you see exactly what you've agreed to see—P&L, cash position, forward covenant projections, debt schedule—updated nightly from the ERP. When a ratio is drifting, you see it as it develops. When it's healthy, you know that too—with numbers you can show your credit committee, not with assurances from a management call. The quarterly covenant certificate becomes a confirmation of what you've already been monitoring, not a report you're trusting on faith.
Three forward scenarios—base, upside, and downside—project covenant compliance six months out using the current operating forecast and actual debt schedule. When a contract the borrower is pursuing matters to their covenant compliance, you see the scenario analysis before the award is made. The relationship moves from reactive to collaborative—not because the borrower changed, but because you both have the same information at the same time.
The 13-week cash forecast in Arcvue is built from actual AR collection patterns, payroll cadence, vendor payment behavior, and debt service—not from assumptions a controller enters into a model. LOC draw behavior is tracked against the facility limit with utilization trend. When the revolver draws materially, it's visible in the context of the week's other cash activity—what invoice cleared, what payroll went out, what the beginning balance was. The draw makes sense or it doesn't, and the lender knows which before they need to ask.
AR aging gives the lender invoice-level visibility into what's outstanding and how long it's been out. A large invoice aging past 60 days on a government contract is different from the same invoice on a commercial credit—government counterparties pay slowly but reliably. The aging tells you whether the borrower's AR is a collection problem or a payment cycle issue. That distinction matters when you're assessing liquidity.
The accrual-to-cash bridge shows why the borrower's bank balance differs from their ERP balance—because it always does, and the difference tells you something about the timing of cash flows that the income statement doesn't. A profitable business with stressed intramonth cash is common in GovCon. Seeing it isn't a problem. Not seeing it until it becomes a crisis is.
General-purpose lender models weren't built for government contractors. They capture revenue, EBITDA, and debt service. They don't capture the GovCon-specific credit variables that determine whether the projected cash flow is real: what percentage of revenue is under active contract versus dependent on recompete wins, what the funded backlog coverage looks like year by year, how contract concentration affects revenue stability, what the indirect rate history says about cost discipline, and what the pipeline coverage ratios say about the growth forecast.
The Arcvue lender model export includes all of it. Funded backlog coverage—the months of revenue under contract at current burn rates—is the GovCon equivalent of a commercial business's backlog. Contract concentration analysis shows how much revenue is exposed to single-customer risk. The revenue waterfall decomposes active contracts, recompetes, and new growth year by year so the credit committee can see where the projected cash flow comes from and how much of it requires winning work that isn't yet under contract. Indirect rate history shows whether the business controls its cost structure or whether rates have been drifting in ways that compress margins.
These are the questions that take three credit committee sessions when the answers don't exist in organized form. When they're in the lender model from the start—sourced directly from the borrower's ERP, not assembled for the presentation—the credit process moves faster and the approval reflects an informed assessment of actual GovCon credit risk, not a general-purpose credit model with a government contractor plugged in.
Every lender has two kinds of borrowers in their portfolio. The ones who show up to conversations with numbers—current DSCR, forward projections, an understanding of where the covenants are relative to the business's trajectory. And the ones where every conversation starts with "let me pull that together and get back to you." The first group gets better terms over time because they earn confidence. The second group gets more scrutiny because the lender can't assess the credit without asking for things that take two weeks to arrive.
A borrower on Arcvue is the first kind of borrower. They know their covenant position before the lender asks. They can model the impact of a contract loss on DSCR before it happens. They show up to amendment conversations with a scenario analysis that shows exactly what the amendment needs to accomplish and why the underlying business supports it. The lender spends less time managing the credit and more time being a genuine partner to the business—which is a better relationship for everyone and produces better outcomes for the credit.
When the borrower asks for an amendment, a new facility, or an increase to the revolver, the lender has the financial context to evaluate the request from current data—not from a model assembled for the conversation. The request gets a faster answer because the information gap that usually requires a week of back-and-forth doesn't exist. That efficiency is worth something to the borrower. It's also worth something to the lender's team that doesn't have to manage the information gathering cycle.