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. Aerospace and defense suppliers are analyzed on certification position (AS9100, ITAR registration), program backlog quality, prime-contractor relationships, and the qualification timeline that precedes revenue. 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, defense procurement and aerospace delivery 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 aerospace or defense manufacturing facility must do more than confirm that a market exists. It must establish that the specific borrower—at its current certification position, with its current program relationships—can capture a defined share of that market, build out the physical plant within a credible capital budget, staff it at the required skill level, and service debt before the utilization ramp is complete. The narrative and model address each layer in sequence, so a lender or agency reviewer can follow the logic from demand to cash without filling in gaps.
Demand analysis for an aerospace or defense supplier begins with the programs the borrower is qualified on or pursuing, not with a top-down industry growth narrative. The study identifies contracted backlog from executed purchase orders and long-term agreements, then layers in identified pipeline from request-for-quote activity and prime-contractor sourcing announcements, and finally applies market-derived demand only where the first two tiers leave a coverage gap. Each tier carries a different confidence weight in the financial model.
Primary data sources include the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) for active registrations and contract awards, the Federal Procurement Data System for historical award volumes by NAICS code and prime contractor, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency supplier base disclosures where available. Prime-contractor 10-K and 10-Q filings supply production rate guidance and supplier-base commentary. The Aerospace Industries Association and National Defense Industrial Association publish procurement and supply-chain data that inform market sizing at the segment level.
Competitive supply analysis examines the existing qualified supplier base for the relevant part families—drawing on SAM.gov registrations, Cage code directories, and prime-contractor approved-vendor lists—to assess whether the borrower is entering a crowded field or filling a genuine capacity gap. Where the borrower holds a sole-source or limited-competition position, that status is documented and its durability assessed against re-competition schedules and program life-cycle data from public budget justification documents.
Four inputs move the debt-service-coverage ratio more than any others in an aerospace or defense manufacturing model, and each requires explicit sourcing and stress discipline rather than a point estimate carried through the projection period without examination.
SBA reviewers applying SOP 50 10 8 require that the study demonstrate 1.15x operating coverage and 1.00x global coverage on a stressed basis, and they expect the demand analysis to distinguish contracted revenue from projected revenue with enough specificity to support the repayment finding. For a defense supplier, that means the study must address program-level risk—budget exposure, re-competition dates, and sole-source status—rather than relying on industry-level growth as a proxy for borrower-level demand.
USDA Business & Industry reviewers under 7 CFR Part 5001 add a rural-impact lens: job creation, wage levels relative to the local median, and the economic multiplier effect of a manufacturing payroll in a rural community. An aerospace or defense plant in a rural labor market must also demonstrate that the required workforce exists or can be trained within the draw period, because a staffing failure is a coverage failure.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and focus heavily on the quality of the backlog—the proportion of revenue supported by executed contracts versus identified pipeline versus market assumption. They also examine the concentration of the customer base: a single prime-contractor relationship that accounts for the majority of projected revenue introduces a dependency that affects both the coverage analysis and the collateral valuation of a specialized facility. The study addresses each of these angles directly, with the financial model structured so any reviewer can isolate and stress the variable that concerns them most.
The fee for an aerospace or defense manufacturing feasibility study is fixed, quoted in writing within one business day of the initial inquiry, and is not contingent on the finding. Because Wert-Berater’s fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the reviewing agency rather than to the borrower, the determination follows the evidence; a fee structure tied to outcome would compromise that independence and is not offered under any circumstances.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. For aerospace and defense engagements, the data room typically includes executed or draft purchase orders and long-term agreements, AS9100 and ITAR registration documentation, equipment quotes or appraisals, the facility lease or construction budget, the organizational chart with key personnel certifications, and three years of historical financials where the borrower is an operating company. Rush delivery is available when the lender’s commitment timeline requires it.
Every engagement is published to a secure client portal where the fully linked Excel model stays live and recalculates when inputs change. A lender or agency reviewer who wants to run a scenario not included in the standard sensitivity suite—a deeper utilization haircut, a sharper material cost spike, a longer qualification delay—can do so without requesting a revised deliverable. The bound narrative report, ten-year pro forma, sensitivity tables, interest-rate stress runs, and ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data are all delivered as a single package. The explicit statement of conditions identifies the certifications, contracts, and approvals that must be in place for the projections to hold.
The fee is fixed, quoted in writing within one business day of inquiry, and does not vary with the finding. Because the engagement scope for aerospace and defense projects—certification analysis, program backlog review, utilization ramp modeling, and labor-shed assessment—is more involved than a simpler commercial project, the quote reflects that scope. Contact the firm with a brief project description to receive a same-day fixed-fee quote.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. For aerospace and defense engagements, the data room must include executed or draft contracts, AS9100 and ITAR documentation, equipment quotes, and the facility budget. Incomplete data rooms extend the timeline. Rush delivery is available when a lender commitment deadline requires it; discuss the schedule at the time of engagement.
Three factors distinguish it: revenue does not begin until after a qualification process that can run twelve to thirty-six months post-construction; fixed-price defense contracts limit the ability to pass through volatile specialty-material costs; and customer concentration in a single prime-contractor relationship creates a dependency that affects both coverage and collateral value. A credible study must address all three explicitly rather than treating them as footnotes.
USDA B&I engagements at Wert-Berater are prepared to RD Staff Instruction 5001 and address the rural-impact criteria—job creation, wage levels, and local economic effect—that B&I reviewers apply alongside the repayment analysis. The study is built to pass agency review; no determination is revised under pressure and no finding is contingent on the fee.
The study documents AS9100 revision level, ITAR registration status, CMMC tier where applicable, and any customer-specific approved-vendor-list positions. Qualification timelines—the period between facility completion and first-article approval—are mapped directly to the revenue schedule in the financial model, because a delay in certification is a delay in revenue and therefore a coverage event.
Yes. Every Wert-Berater financial model is a fully linked Excel workbook with no hardcoded values, published to a secure client portal where it stays live and recalculates when inputs change. A reviewer who wants to test a longer qualification delay, a sharper material cost increase, or a deeper utilization haircut can do so directly in the model without requesting a revised report.
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.