Grant and incentive programs do not fund good intentions — they fund applications that prove eligibility and viability on the program’s own terms. That proof is a feasibility analysis built to the agency’s scoring criteria.
Each grant and incentive program scores applications against specific viability and impact tests, and a generic study does not address them. The firm prepares the analysis the program actually requires — energy savings and payback for USDA REAP, value-added economics and market expansion for Value-Added Producer Grants, essential-community-need and financial sustainability for Community Facilities, and the job-creation and economic-impact evidence behind state and local incentive awards. Where multiple sources of capital stack — a grant atop a guaranteed loan atop a tax credit — the firm models the combined structure and demonstrates viability with and without each layer, so the awarding agency and the lender each see the case addressed to their own standard.
Renewable-energy and efficiency feasibility to the program’s technical and financial criteria: energy and dollar savings, simple payback, and the project economics REAP scoring rewards.
The market expansion and value-added economics VAPG requires — demonstrated demand for the value-added product, margin analysis, and the viability narrative the application must carry.
Essential-need documentation, demographic and demand evidence, and financial-sustainability analysis for CF financing and for state and local incentive and tax-credit applications.
Where grants, guaranteed loans, and credits combine, the firm models the full stack and demonstrates viability layer by layer — addressed to every awarding body in the file.
Fixed fees quoted in advance, scoped to the program and the number of capital sources analyzed. Pairs with the firm’s full feasibility studies where a program requires both an application package and a lender-grade study, and with monitoring where an award carries ongoing performance reporting.
A grant and incentive feasibility engagement is not a grant-writing service and is not a compliance checklist. It is an independent determination of whether the underlying project — stripped of the grant or credit itself — is economically viable, and then a layered analysis of how the incentive changes the capital stack, the coverage ratios, and the conditions under which the project remains serviceable if the award is delayed, reduced, or clawed back. Every deliverable is built to the standard of the reviewing agency or lender, not to the sponsor's preferred outcome.
Demand analysis for a grant and incentive feasibility engagement must answer two distinct questions: is there a market for what the project produces or provides, and is the project's operating model durable enough to service debt without the grant if program rules change? The two questions require different evidence and different methods.
For the underlying enterprise — an agricultural processing facility, a rural energy system, a community facility — the analyst builds demand from primary sources appropriate to that sector. For agricultural value-added projects, those sources include USDA Agricultural Marketing Service price series, National Agricultural Statistics Service production data, and trade-association volume reports. For renewable energy projects under REAP, the analyst reviews utility interconnection queues, state public-utility commission filings, and published avoided-cost or net-metering schedules. For community facilities, the analyst draws on U.S. Census Bureau demographic data, state health or education licensing registries, and service-area population projections from regional planning agencies.
Competitive supply is counted from verifiable public records — state licensing databases, USDA program award lists, Federal Register notices, and local permitting records — not from sponsor-supplied market summaries. The counting method is documented in the narrative so a reviewer can replicate it. Where a program imposes a geographic service-area boundary, the competitive analysis is confined to that boundary and the rationale is stated explicitly.
Coverage ratios for incentive-dependent projects are sensitive to a small number of inputs that interact in ways a static spreadsheet cannot expose. Because the financial model is a fully linked Excel workbook with no hardcoded values, a reviewer can move any single input and observe the effect on debt-service coverage in real time. Four categories of assumption consistently decide whether a project clears the coverage threshold.
Each reviewing body applies a different standard, and a study prepared only to one standard will not satisfy the others when a project involves layered financing.
USDA Rural Development engagements follow RD Staff Instruction 5001. For REAP, the agency requires evidence that the project is an eligible renewable energy system or energy-efficiency improvement, that the applicant is an agricultural producer or rural small business, and that the technical and financial analysis supports repayment independent of the grant. For Value-Added Producer Grant and Community Facilities programs, the agency looks for a realistic marketing plan, evidence of committed offtake or service demand, and a capital structure in which the grant does not create a windfall that distorts the borrower's incentive to operate the project prudently.
SBA engagements are prepared to SOP 50 10 8, which requires minimum operating coverage of 1.15x and global coverage of 1.00x. When a grant is part of the equity injection, the analyst must confirm that the grant is unconditional and not subject to recapture before it can be counted as equity rather than contingent debt.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and are most focused on the clawback scenario: if the grant is recaptured, does the project still service the loan? The study addresses that question directly with a documented scenario, not a footnote. The fiduciary duty in every engagement runs to the lender and the reviewing agency, and no finding is revised under pressure from the borrower or the grant consultant.
The engagement begins with a fixed fee quoted in writing within one business day of receiving a project summary. The fee does not change based on the finding, and no portion of it is contingent on a favorable determination. That structure is not a marketing position; it is the condition that makes the study credible to a reviewing agency.
Delivery runs 10 to 15 business days from a complete data room. For grant and incentive projects, a complete data room includes the program application or term sheet, the project cost breakdown with contractor bids or estimates, three years of the operating entity's financial statements, the proposed debt structure, documentation of the matching-fund source, and any prior agency correspondence. Incomplete data rooms are the single most common cause of delay, and the engagement letter specifies exactly what is required before the clock starts.
Rush delivery is available and is quoted at the time of engagement. Every engagement is published to a secure client portal where the financial model remains live: when a lender or agency reviewer asks what happens if a cost line increases or the grant award is reduced, the analyst can update the input and the entire model recalculates without rebuilding the workbook. The bound narrative report, ten-year pro forma, sensitivity tables, and statement of conditions are all delivered through the same portal. The model does not contain hardcoded values, so any reviewer can audit the logic from input to output without contacting the firm.
The fee is fixed and quoted in writing within one business day of receiving a project summary. It does not vary based on the outcome, and no portion is contingent on a favorable finding. Because the scope is defined before work begins, there are no change-order surprises. Rush delivery is available and is priced at the time of engagement.
Standard delivery is 10 to 15 business days from a complete data room. For REAP and Value-Added Producer Grant projects, the data room must include the program application or term sheet, project cost documentation, three years of financial statements, and documentation of the matching-fund source. Incomplete submissions are the most common cause of delay.
The core difficulty is that the grant is both a source of funds and a contingent liability. If the award is delayed, reduced, or subject to recapture, the capital stack changes after closing. A credible study must model the project under each of those scenarios — not just the base case in which the grant arrives on time and in full — and show that debt service remains covered in the adverse cases.
Yes, provided the study is prepared to the applicable USDA RD Staff Instruction 5001 standard. Engagements for projects with layered SBA and USDA financing are built to satisfy both SOP 50 10 8 and the relevant USDA program instruction simultaneously. The deliverable set — narrative, pro forma, sensitivity tables, and statement of conditions — is structured so a single document satisfies both reviewers.
No. A feasibility study is an independent analytical determination, not an approval or an endorsement by any agency. It documents whether the project's economics support the proposed financing structure under stated assumptions. The reviewing agency and lender make their own credit and program decisions. No finding from this firm is represented as a guarantee of approval.
A complete data room for a grant and incentive engagement typically includes three years of the operating entity's financial statements, the proposed debt term sheet, a project cost breakdown with contractor bids or estimates, the program application or award letter, documentation of the matching-fund source, and any prior agency correspondence. The engagement letter specifies the full list before the clock starts.
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.