Prepared for lenders, CDCs, and federal agencies to SBA SOP 50 10 8, USDA 7 CFR Part 5001, and conventional underwriting standards. Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the agency, never the borrower. 4,000+ engagements since 1998 covering $41.2 billion in evaluated project value. So far in 2026: 41 engagements and $1.54 billion evaluated — 17 SBA, 11 USDA.
Manufacturing feasibility joins market demand to production economics. The study establishes demand for the plant's output — contracted, identified, or market-derived — then tests the production model: capacity and utilization ramp, input cost structure, labor availability at the required skill level, and the capital budget against industry benchmarks. Robotics, additive, and precision-instrument operations add technology-readiness assessment, intellectual-property position, and the engineering-talent supply that constrains scale-up. Because USDA and SBA reviewers read manufacturing studies against job-creation and rural-impact criteria as well as repayment, the study documents employment, wage levels, and local economic effect to the standard the program requires.
Methodology combines industry production and pricing data, advanced-manufacturing investment data, RSMeans location-adjusted facility budgets, BLS occupational wage data for the staffing model, and RMA and IBISWorld operating benchmarks. The financial model carries the utilization ramp, input-cost sensitivity, and program coverage tests across the firm's standard stress discipline, with every assumption sourced.
Every Wert-Berater financial model is fully linked with no hardcoded values, so any reviewer can stress any input. Deliverables comprise a complete narrative report and the linked Excel model, with ten-year pro forma, sensitivity analysis at ±5, 10, and 15 percent, interest-rate stress from +0.5 to +3.0 percent, and ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data.
SBA engagements are prepared to SOP 50 10 8, including its debt-service-coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global. USDA engagements follow RD Staff Instruction 5001 across the Business & Industry, Community Facilities, REAP, and Value-Added Producer Grant programs. Conventional engagements are built to the lender's stated coverage standard, typically 1.20x. Manufacturing reaches us predominantly through USDA B&I — where rural plant economics and job creation align with program purpose — alongside SBA 504 for owner-occupied facilities and conventional lending; Value-Added Producer Grant studies are prepared to 7 CFR Part 5001 where agricultural producers integrate forward into processing.
The firm's manufacturing and processing record spans USDA B&I and SBA engagements nationwide, including cold-chain, food-system, and industrial projects; manufacturing studies are prepared with the same fully linked financial models and stress discipline as every Wert-Berater engagement. Independence is non-negotiable: determinations follow the evidence and are not revised under pressure, and studies are built to pass lender, agency, and third-party review without exception items.
Screening the industrial market before committing to a full engagement? Manufacturing Market Risk Intelligence is a report prepared by our analysts to a published structure: supply, demand and the operating conditions in one market, with coverage shown before the order is taken. It is a market risk view, not a feasibility determination on your project, and it does not replace the study described on this page.
A feasibility study for an advanced manufacturing or automation project must address layers of technical and financial risk that a conventional plant study does not encounter. The scope begins with a technology-readiness assessment that positions the proposed process on the accepted readiness scale, documents whether the production method has been validated at commercial scale, and identifies the gap between current status and full production. Intellectual-property position is reviewed — patent coverage, licensing obligations, and any exclusivity provisions that affect competitive moat or royalty cost. Engineering-talent supply is mapped against the specific occupational classifications the operation requires, because workforce scarcity constrains utilization ramp as directly as capital does.
Every assumption is sourced in the narrative. The linked Excel model carries no hardcoded values, so any reviewer can alter any input and observe the effect on coverage ratios in real time.
Demand analysis for an advanced manufacturing project cannot rely on foot-traffic counts or absorption surveys. The analysis begins by establishing the form of demand: contracted offtake, identified letters of intent, or market-derived volume supported by evidence. Each form is treated differently in the financial model and disclosed to the reviewer with the appropriate confidence weight.
Market-derived demand draws on trade-association shipment and consumption data, industry production surveys published by federal statistical agencies, and sector-specific databases that track installed capacity, utilization rates, and order backlogs. For automation and precision-instrument operations, procurement records from publicly accessible federal contracting databases and state economic-development project announcements provide evidence of active buyer activity. Where the product competes in a regional market, competitive-supply analysis inventories existing producers by capacity, ownership, and operating status, using public filings, state business registries, and trade-press records rather than assumption.
For projects seeking USDA Business & Industry financing, the demand narrative must also establish rural-market context: the absence or inadequacy of existing supply within the service area, and the degree to which the proposed facility fills a documented gap. For Value-Added Producer Grant studies, the agricultural commodity input supply is traced through USDA production statistics and cooperative or contract records to confirm feedstock availability at the volumes the production model requires. No demand figure enters the model without a cited source.
Four categories of assumption account for most of the variance in debt-service coverage for an advanced manufacturing project. Each is stress-tested explicitly rather than held constant, because lenders and agency reviewers will probe exactly these inputs during credit underwriting.
Each stress result is reported against the applicable coverage threshold so the lender can read the margin of safety directly.
SBA reviewers applying SOP 50 10 8 require that the study demonstrate 1.15x debt-service coverage on an operating basis and 1.00x on a global basis before the loan can proceed. For a manufacturing project, the operating coverage test is particularly sensitive to the utilization ramp, because a plant operating below stabilized throughput in its early years may satisfy the global test while failing the operating test. The study documents each year of the ramp separately and identifies the year in which stabilized coverage is first achieved.
USDA Business & Industry reviewers under RD Staff Instruction 5001 apply additional criteria that SBA does not: job creation, wage levels relative to the area median, and the rural economic impact of the project. An advanced manufacturing plant that creates skilled technical positions at above-median wages satisfies these criteria more readily than a commodity operation, but the study must quantify employment by occupational classification and document wage rates from BLS data rather than assertion. REAP engagements for energy-efficiency or renewable-energy components of a manufacturing facility require a separate energy-savings or generation analysis integrated into the operating cost model.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and focus on collateral adequacy alongside cash-flow coverage. Specialized manufacturing equipment presents collateral risk because liquidation value diverges sharply from installed cost for purpose-built automation systems; the study addresses this by documenting the equipment's market outside the proposed application and the borrower's broader collateral position.
The fee is fixed and quoted within one business day of a project inquiry. No portion of the fee is contingent on the study's finding, and the finding is not revised because a sponsor or lender prefers a different result. The fixed-fee structure means the sponsor knows the total cost before the engagement begins, with no exposure to hourly overruns.
Standard delivery is 10 to 15 business days from the date a complete data room is received. A complete data room for an advanced manufacturing project includes the business plan or project narrative, equipment specifications and vendor quotes, any offtake contracts or letters of intent, site control documentation, the proposed capital structure, and three years of historical financial statements if the sponsor is an operating entity. Incomplete data rooms extend the timeline; the engagement clock does not start until the data room is confirmed complete.
Rush delivery is available and is quoted at the time of engagement. Once the study is complete, the bound narrative report and the fully linked Excel model are published to a secure client portal. The financial model remains live in the portal: when a lender or agency reviewer changes an input — a revised interest rate, an updated equipment quote, a modified draw schedule — every output, including coverage ratios and sensitivity tables, recalculates immediately. The study also includes an explicit statement of conditions that identifies the assumptions on which the finding depends, so any material change in project parameters can be evaluated against the conditions without commissioning a new study.
The fee is fixed and quoted within one business day of inquiry. It does not vary with loan size or the study's finding, and no portion is contingent on outcome. Because the scope for advanced manufacturing studies includes technology-readiness assessment, intellectual-property review, and occupational wage analysis in addition to the standard financial model, the quote reflects that additional depth.
Standard delivery is 10 to 15 business days from receipt of a complete data room. For advanced manufacturing projects, a complete data room includes equipment specifications, vendor quotes, any offtake or supply contracts, site control documentation, and the proposed capital structure. Rush delivery is available and is quoted at engagement. The clock starts when the data room is confirmed complete, not when the engagement is signed.
Three factors distinguish this project type from conventional manufacturing: the utilization ramp is longer and less predictable because commissioning and workforce training for automated systems take more time than sponsors project; input costs include licensed components and energy loads that are more volatile than commodity inputs; and collateral value for purpose-built automation equipment can fall sharply below installed cost if the business fails. A credible study addresses all three explicitly.
No. A feasibility study is an independent analytical determination, not an approval instrument. It establishes whether the project's economics support the proposed debt structure under the applicable program standard. The lender and the reviewing agency make their own credit and eligibility determinations. No study, regardless of its finding, binds any agency or lender.
Sources vary by product and market but typically include federal statistical agency production and shipment surveys, trade-association data, publicly accessible federal contracting and procurement records, state business and licensing registries, trade-press capacity announcements, and USDA commodity production statistics where agricultural inputs are involved. Every demand figure entered into the financial model is cited to a specific, verifiable source.
The financial model is published to a secure client portal and remains live after delivery, so a lender or reviewer can adjust inputs — a revised interest rate, updated equipment pricing, or a modified draw schedule — and observe the effect on coverage ratios immediately. Material changes to project scope, capital structure, or market assumptions may require a formal amendment; that is evaluated case by case and quoted at the time of the request.
Qualify a project. Tell us about the project and the program. We will tell you the truth about it — scope, timeline, and fee confirmed before work begins.
Schedule a Zoom Call →Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.