The honest answer is structural, not a price list: what drives the fee, what the fee buys, and why the cheapest study is routinely the most expensive document in the loan file.
Feasibility study fees are not a price list; they scale with the analytical work the financing demands. Four structural drivers account for nearly all of the variation. First, the lending program: SBA SOP 50 10 8 and USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 each prescribe specific factors the study must address — the USDA framework alone enumerates 37 factors across five feasibility dimensions — and program-compliant treatment takes more analyst time than a conventional-lending scope. Second, the asset class: a single-tenant retail building and a sugar refinery restoration are not the same assignment; processing facilities, multi-component projects, and special-purpose properties require deeper technical and market work. Third, the capital structure: layered stacks combining senior debt, guaranteed debt, grants, and multi-entity equity demand reconciliation work that a single-loan project does not. Fourth, data availability: a project with complete plans, budgets, and third-party reports moves faster than one where the analyst must build the record.
Across the 4,000+ engagements Wert-Berater has completed since 1998 — $41.2 billion in evaluated project value — the study fee has typically represented a small fraction of one percent of total project cost, while the document determines whether the remaining ninety-nine-plus percent gets funded. A study rejected by an underwriter for inadequate scope costs far more than the difference between a compliant study and a template: the lost loan-cycle time alone, commonly measured in months, exceeds any fee differential. Lenders see this asymmetry clearly. In the firm’s experience the borrower most often engages directly — banks, lenders, and CDCs apply differing rules on who must initiate, and lender confirmation is obtained before work begins in every case — which keeps the engagement inside the reliance framework rather than shopped on price.
A Wert-Berater study is a lender-grade analytical package, not a narrative memo: a full report addressing every program-required factor, a linked financial model with a ten-year pro forma, sensitivity analysis at ±5, 10, and 15 percent, interest-rate stress testing from +0.5 to +3.0 percent, Monte Carlo simulation, discounted cash flow analysis, and ratio tables benchmarked against RMA and industry data — each with the supporting narrative an underwriter needs to rely on the figure without reconstructing it.
Fees scale with the lending program, asset class, capital-structure complexity, and data readiness, and are quoted per engagement. Across 4,000+ Wert-Berater engagements since 1998, the study fee has typically represented a small fraction of one percent of total project cost.
Wert-Berater completes standard studies in 10 to 15 business days from receipt of complete project data. Complex or international assignments may require 20 to 25 business days.
Underwriters reject studies that do not address the program-required factors. A rejected study costs months of loan-cycle time, which exceeds any fee saved. Independent, program-compliant analysis is what the requirement exists to obtain.
A fee-quote conversation is straightforward; the analytical work behind it is not. For any engagement where the question is how much does a feasibility study cost, the answer begins with scope — and scope is determined by what the lending program requires the analyst to resolve, not by what is convenient to produce. For a project evaluated under SBA SOP 50 10 8, the study must demonstrate operating coverage at or above 1.15x and global coverage at or above 1.00x, with the supporting narrative that allows an underwriter to trace every figure. For a USDA RD engagement, the analyst works across all enumerated feasibility dimensions in RD Staff Instruction 5001. For a conventional lender, the coverage threshold is typically 1.20x, applied to the lender’s stated underwriting standard.
The demand analysis is where analyst hours accumulate fastest, and it is the section underwriters scrutinize most closely. For a cost-of-a-feasibility-study engagement, the market work is not a restatement of secondary data; it is a constructed argument that primary demand is sufficient to support the projected revenue at the assumed price point, after accounting for competitive supply already in the market and supply reasonably expected to enter it.
Primary demand is assembled from sources that are specific to the project type: trade-association utilization benchmarks, state licensing and permitting registries, certificate-of-need filings where applicable, utility interconnection queues for energy projects, traffic-count databases for location-dependent retail or hospitality concepts, and U.S. Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics series for population, employment, and income trends in the defined market area. Competitive supply is counted from direct field enumeration, commercial real estate databases, municipal building-permit records, and state business-registration filings — not estimated. Each identified competitor is characterized by capacity, price positioning, and estimated utilization so the analyst can model the share the subject project must capture to achieve coverage. The result is a defensible market-share assumption, not a residual derived by subtracting a round number from a national growth rate.
Every feasibility determination reduces, in the end, to a small number of inputs that dominate the coverage ratio. Identifying those inputs, testing them rigorously, and disclosing the results transparently is the analytical core of the engagement. For most projects, four assumption categories account for the majority of model sensitivity.
Each assumption is documented with the source or method used to derive it, so the underwriter can evaluate the basis rather than accept the output.
The three lending frameworks impose different analytical obligations, and those obligations directly determine the scope — and therefore the cost — of a compliant study.
Under SBA SOP 50 10 8, the underwriter needs a study that produces a documented operating coverage ratio at or above 1.15x and a global coverage ratio at or above 1.00x. The study must address the borrower’s relevant experience, the project’s market position, and the reasonableness of the financial projections. SBA underwriters are trained to identify studies that satisfy the form of the requirement without the substance; a narrative that restates the borrower’s own projections without independent verification does not satisfy the requirement.
Under USDA RD Staff Instruction 5001, the study must address all enumerated feasibility dimensions across the applicable program — Business & Industry, Community Facilities, REAP, or Value-Added Producer Grant — each of which carries its own emphasis. Community Facilities engagements, for example, require close attention to the service-area population base and the organization’s capacity to sustain operations through demand cycles. REAP engagements require technical feasibility analysis alongside the financial work.
Conventional lenders typically apply a 1.20x coverage standard and have more latitude in scope, but experienced credit officers expect the same quality of market evidence and model transparency that agency programs require. A study built to agency standards satisfies a conventional underwriter; the reverse is not always true.
Every engagement is quoted individually — within one business day of a completed four-field fee-quote request — after a brief qualification call covering the lending program, asset class, capital structure, and data readiness. The fee is fixed at that point; it does not change if the determination is unfavorable, if the model requires additional sensitivity runs, or if the underwriter requests clarification. There are no success fees and no contingent pricing, because a contingent fee would compromise the independence that makes the determination worth relying on.
Standard delivery is 10 to 15 business days from receipt of a complete project data room. The data room is the clock-start: the timeline does not begin until the analyst has the plans, budgets, lease abstracts, organizational documents, and any third-party reports the scope requires. Incomplete submissions extend the timeline; assembling a complete data room before engagement is the single most effective way a borrower can control both cost and schedule.
Upon delivery, the financial model is published to a secure client portal as a fully linked Excel workbook. Every input cell is unlocked and labeled; no values are hardcoded. A reviewer can change any assumption — occupancy, rate, expense, note rate, amortization term — and the pro forma, coverage ratios, and sensitivity tables recalculate immediately. The model stays live in the portal for the duration of the underwriting process, which means a lender requesting a scenario does not require a new engagement.
Independent feasibility studies since 1998 — 4,000+ engagements, $41.2 billion in evaluated project value, all 50 states. Fiduciary duty to the lender and agency.
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.