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. For food and beverage plants — processing, bottling, brewing, distilling, co-packing — the analysis adds food-safety capital (FSMA, USDA-FSIS or FDA registration), cold-chain requirements, and the customer-concentration risk typical of co-packer and private-label models. 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, USDA commodity and food-flow series, 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 storage and refrigerated warehouse feasibility studies, 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 a food or beverage manufacturing facility must answer a narrower and more technical set of questions than a general commercial project. The study opens with a plant-level demand analysis—contracted volume, identified off-take, or market-derived absorption—then moves through the full production economics before reaching the financial model. Because food and beverage plants carry regulatory obligations that directly affect capital cost and operating structure, those obligations are treated as inputs to the model, not footnotes to the narrative.
Demand analysis for a food or beverage plant is not a single-source exercise. The study triangulates from multiple independent data streams because any one source—a sponsor's sales forecast, a trade-association report, or a commodity outlook—carries its own bias or lag. The analyst's job is to test whether the plant's projected volume is supportable by evidence that exists independent of the applicant's projections.
For plants selling into identified channels, the study examines executed letters of intent, supply agreements, or distributor commitments and discounts them against historical contract-renewal rates and buyer concentration. For plants selling into open markets, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service price and volume series, NASS production data, and USDA Economic Research Service food-expenditure and food-flow data establish the size and trajectory of the addressable market. State department of agriculture licensing registries and TTB permit databases identify existing licensed competitors by production tier. Grocery and foodservice broker networks, specialty retailer buyer data, and co-packer capacity surveys sourced through industry trade associations—including those specific to brewing, distilling, dairy, meat processing, and produce—inform competitive-supply estimates. Where a plant's revenue depends on a retail or foodservice placement strategy, shelf-reset calendars and category-review cycles are examined to confirm that the projected ramp is consistent with how buyers actually onboard new suppliers. Every demand conclusion is stated as a range, not a point estimate, and the financial model is run at the low end of that range as the base case.
Four categories of assumption account for most of the variance in debt-service coverage for a food or beverage plant. Identifying them early allows the study to concentrate its stress discipline where it matters and to give lenders a clear picture of which inputs to monitor through the life of the loan.
Each assumption is sourced, and the basis for every input is documented so a reviewing agency or lender credit officer can trace the number to its origin without contacting the analyst.
SBA, USDA, and conventional lenders each bring a distinct review lens to a food or beverage manufacturing study, and a study that satisfies one audience without anticipating the others creates unnecessary friction in the credit process.
SBA reviewers applying SOP 50 10 8 focus on global cash flow coverage at 1.00x and operating coverage at 1.15x, but they also examine whether the business purpose is eligible, whether the capital budget is adequately supported, and whether the market analysis is independent of the applicant. For food and beverage plants, SBA reviewers pay particular attention to customer concentration—a plant whose revenue depends on a single retail account or co-pack agreement presents a repayment risk that must be addressed directly in the narrative.
USDA Business & Industry reviewers under RD Staff Instruction 5001 weight job creation, wage levels, and rural economic impact alongside repayment capacity. The study documents permanent and construction employment, average wages by classification, and the plant's effect on local agricultural supply chains where applicable. Value-Added Producer Grant studies must also establish that the processing activity meaningfully increases the value of an agricultural commodity produced by the grant applicant.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and focus on collateral adequacy alongside cash flow. For food and beverage plants, specialized equipment—filling lines, fermentation vessels, pasteurizers, cold-storage systems—carries liquidation values that diverge significantly from cost-new; the study addresses this gap explicitly so the lender's collateral analysis is grounded in realistic recovery assumptions rather than book value.
Every engagement begins with a fixed fee quoted within one business day of the initial inquiry. The fee does not vary with the study's conclusion, and no portion of it is contingent on a favorable finding. That structure is not a formality—it is the mechanism that keeps the fiduciary duty running to the lender and the reviewing agency rather than to the borrower.
Standard delivery is 10 to 15 business days from the date a complete data room is received. For food and beverage manufacturing projects, a complete data room typically includes the capital budget with equipment specifications, any executed or draft supply or off-take agreements, the sponsor's operating projections with stated assumptions, facility lease or site-control documentation, and any existing regulatory correspondence—USDA-FSIS, FDA, state department of agriculture, or TTB. Rush delivery is available when the credit timeline requires it.
Deliverables are published to a secure client portal where the linked Excel model remains live. Because every input in the model is unlocked and connected—no hardcoded values anywhere in the workbook—a lender or agency reviewer can change any assumption and watch every output recalculate in real time. That transparency is particularly valuable for food and beverage plants, where commodity price and utilization assumptions are the inputs most likely to be challenged in credit committee. The narrative report carries an explicit statement of conditions: the circumstances under which the study's conclusions hold, stated plainly so that any change in project scope or market conditions can be evaluated against a documented baseline.
The fee is fixed and quoted within one business day of the initial inquiry. It does not vary with the study's finding, and no portion is contingent on a favorable conclusion. The exact amount depends on project complexity—a single-product bottling line differs from a multi-SKU co-packing facility—but the quote is binding and there are no hourly overruns.
Standard delivery is 10 to 15 business days from receipt of a complete data room. Rush delivery is available when a credit deadline requires it. The clock starts when all required documents are in hand—capital budget, supply or off-take agreements, operating projections, site control, and any existing regulatory correspondence—not when the engagement is signed.
Three factors set this asset class apart: commodity input prices that move independently of the plant's revenue, regulatory timelines—USDA-FSIS grant-of-inspection, FDA registration, TTB permitting—that can delay the revenue start date, and customer concentration risk in co-pack and private-label models where a single buyer can represent the majority of projected volume. Each requires explicit stress testing rather than a footnote.
Not automatically. USDA RD Staff Instruction 5001 requires documentation of job creation, wage levels, and rural economic impact that SBA SOP 50 10 8 does not emphasize to the same degree. A study built only to SBA standards may satisfy repayment analysis but leave employment and rural-impact sections incomplete, which creates a deficiency in the USDA review process.
Yes. Food-safety capital requirements under FSMA and the costs associated with USDA-FSIS grant-of-inspection or FDA facility registration are not incidental—they affect the capital budget, the operating cost structure, and the revenue ramp. A study that omits them produces an understated capital requirement and an overstated early-year cash flow, both of which will be flagged in agency review.
The study states the finding, documents the basis for it, and identifies—where the evidence supports it—the conditions under which feasibility could be established: a revised capital structure, a higher utilization threshold, an executed off-take agreement, or a different product mix. The determination is not revised because a sponsor or lender disagrees with it; the fiduciary duty runs to the reviewing agency, not to the applicant.
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.