Before anyone commissions the full study, one question deserves a fast, inexpensive, independent answer: does this project deserve one?
A focused desktop review delivered in three to five business days. The firm pulls the trade-area evidence — demographics, traffic or demand drivers, and the competitive set — from the same published sources the full study would use; tests the sponsor’s pro forma against its RMA and IBISWorld benchmark corridors; and runs the preliminary coverage arithmetic against the proposed debt. The deliverable is a four-to-six page memorandum with one of three conclusions, stated plainly: proceed to full study, proceed with revisions (and which assumptions must change), or do not proceed (and why). If the project advances, the screen fee is credited in full against the feasibility study.
Find out whether the project survives independent arithmetic before spending real money on the full engagement — and learn which assumptions need work while changes are still cheap.
A fast independent read on whether a prospective credit warrants the borrower’s investment in a full study — deal triage at a fraction of full-study cost.
Qualify projects before they enter your pipeline. A screen that says do not proceed costs your client little; a dead deal at underwriting costs everyone months.
Projects already in underwriting with a lender requiring the full study should go straight to it — the screen exists for the decision before that decision.
A single fixed fee, quoted the same business day, a fraction of the full study cost — and credited entirely toward the full feasibility study if the project proceeds. The conclusion is independent: the screen exists to kill weak projects early as much as to confirm strong ones, and it does both.
A feasibility screen is not a condensed version of a full study. It is a structured, evidence-based triage: enough analysis to tell a sponsor and their lender whether the project deserves the cost and time of a complete engagement, or whether a fundamental flaw makes that investment premature. The scope is deliberately bounded, and every deliverable is defined before the fee is quoted.
The screen does not replace the full study; it protects all parties from advancing a fatally flawed project into expensive due diligence.
Desktop does not mean superficial. It means the analyst works from secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary field interviews, which is appropriate at the screening stage when speed and cost discipline matter. The data assembled is the same data that would anchor a full feasibility study; the difference is that fewer sources are layered and no primary survey is commissioned.
Population and household counts come from Census Bureau decennial data and American Community Survey five-year estimates, segmented by age cohort, income band, and household type as relevant to the project category. Daytime population and commuter flows are drawn from Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics files where the project's revenue depends on a workforce rather than a residential catchment.
Competitive supply is built from state or county licensing registries, certificate-of-occupancy records, secretary-of-state business filings, and where applicable, utility interconnection queues or permit databases. Each competitor is located, sized where public records allow, and assigned an estimated market position. Pipeline supply — projects permitted but not yet operating — is flagged separately because it affects the stabilization timeline, not just the steady-state market share assumption.
Traffic-count data from state DOT sources is used when the project's revenue model depends on pass-by or destination capture. Trade-association benchmarks provide a cross-check on capture rates before any sponsor assumption is accepted at face value. The analyst documents every source so a reviewing agency can replicate the pull.
A coverage ratio is only as reliable as the inputs that produce it. In a desktop screen, the analyst's primary task is to identify which two or three assumptions dominate the model and then stress each one independently and in combination. For most project types reviewed at this stage, the following inputs carry the most leverage over the debt-service coverage ratio.
When any single input, moved within a plausible range, breaks coverage below the applicable minimum, the screen flags that input as a condition requiring resolution before a full study proceeds.
Lenders and reviewing agencies do not read a feasibility screen the same way a sponsor does. A sponsor reads for confirmation; a credit officer reads for the conditions and the stress cases. Understanding that distinction shapes how the screen is written.
For SBA engagements governed by SOP 50 10 8, the screen must demonstrate that the project can sustain a 1.15x operating coverage ratio and a 1.00x global coverage ratio under the proposed loan structure. The screen identifies whether those thresholds are achievable under the sponsor's assumptions and whether they survive the standard sensitivity range. Because no fee is contingent on the finding and determinations are not revised under pressure, the SBA lender receives an independent read, not an advocacy document.
USDA engagements — whether under the Business & Industry program, Community Facilities, REAP, or Value-Added Producer Grant — are prepared to RD Staff Instruction 5001. The screen at the pre-engagement stage establishes whether the project's economics are consistent with what that instruction requires before the sponsor invests in a full application package.
Conventional lenders typically require a 1.20x coverage standard. They also look for evidence that the competitive supply analysis is current, that the stabilization assumption is conservative relative to comparable projects, and that the expense benchmarks are drawn from a recognized industry source rather than the sponsor's internal projections. The screen's explicit statement of conditions gives the credit officer a checklist of open items before the loan advances to underwriting.
The engagement begins with a fee quote, delivered within one business day of the initial inquiry. The fee is fixed; it does not change if the finding is unfavorable, if the sponsor pushes back on the conclusion, or if additional sensitivity scenarios are requested within the original scope. There are no contingent fees at any stage of the engagement.
Once the fee is accepted, the firm issues a data-room checklist. The checklist is specific to the project type and requests the documents the analyst needs to test the sponsor's assumptions: the pro forma or financial projections, the proposed loan term sheet, the site or location information, any existing market studies or appraisals, and entity formation documents where global cash flow is relevant. The clock for the delivery window starts when the data room is complete, not when the engagement is signed.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from a complete data room. Rush delivery is available and is quoted at the time of engagement. Partial data rooms extend the timeline; the firm will not issue a screen based on incomplete inputs because an incomplete input set produces an unreliable coverage calculation.
The finished screen is published to a secure client portal. The underlying Excel workbook is fully linked with no hardcoded values, so the lender's credit officer or the reviewing agency's analyst can change any input — loan amount, interest rate, utilization assumption — and watch the coverage ratio recalculate in real time. The model stays live in the portal after delivery. The written determination and the conditions statement are included in the same portal upload as the model.
The fee is fixed and quoted in writing within one business day of the initial inquiry. It does not change based on the finding, the project size, or the number of sensitivity scenarios run within the original scope. Because no fee is contingent on the outcome, the lender receives an independent determination rather than a paid opinion.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from the date the data room is complete. The clock starts when all requested documents are received, not when the engagement letter is signed. Rush delivery is available and is priced at the time of engagement. Incomplete data rooms extend the timeline because missing inputs produce unreliable coverage calculations.
The most common difficulty is a sponsor pro forma built on internal assumptions with no third-party benchmark. When projected revenue per unit, occupancy at stabilization, and operating expense ratios all differ materially from RMA and IBISWorld industry medians for the relevant NAICS code, the analyst cannot accept any of the three at face value, and the screen must flag all three as conditions before a full study is warranted.
No. A feasibility screen is an independent analytical determination, not an advocacy document and not a loan approval. The firm's fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the reviewing agency. A favorable screen means the project's economics are consistent with the applicable coverage standard under the assumptions tested; it does not bind any lender or agency to a credit decision.
The screen is a bounded triage: trade-area data, a benchmark test of the sponsor's pro forma, preliminary coverage math, and a written proceed / revise / do not proceed determination. A full study adds primary demand analysis, a complete ten-year pro forma, full sensitivity and interest-rate stress tables, ratio analysis, and an explicit conditions statement. The screen determines whether a full study is warranted.
Yes. SBA engagements are prepared to SOP 50 10 8, with 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. The screen identifies at the pre-engagement stage whether the project's economics are consistent with the requirements of the applicable program before the sponsor commits to a full application.
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.