Would Lenders Normalize EBITDA for an MFG Disruption?

A B2B construction/industrial design/product business that I’m actively pursuing relies on a single third-party manufacturer for its build-on-demand products (which include both off-the-shelf and custom designs). This third-party manufacturer was closed for three months for retooling in 2023. It’s my understanding that this is the only-time such a closure has occurred in the decade plus time the target company has partnered with the manufacturer. The target company continued to operate during this time, but could not sell/fulfill orders for these three months (thus incurring twelve months of expenses while having theoretically only nine months of net income). How would a lender typically approach this for an SBA 7(a) loan? Would they normalize the 2023 net income when evaluating the business? Or simply approach such a disruption as an inherent operational risk and a reality that—thus—should not be given special consideration or used to justify normalizing the 2023 financials? On a more macro-scale, perhaps this is not that different from how lenders might handle broader challenges impacting income (such as extended supply chain disruptions that compromise revenue) . . . Building on this, are there any addition thoughts to think and points to consider for making a valuation on the heels of such a situation? And what type of documentation would most lenders and the SBA ultimately require for such a disruption (at the moment, the third-party manufacturer is not aware that this target company—a key client of theirs—is for sale)? Thanks in advance for any wisdom and insights you are able to share!