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 protein processing the analysis adds livestock or landings supply within economic haul distance, FSIS inspection economics, yield and drop-credit modeling, and the labor intensity that defines the category's operating risk. 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 NASS livestock and NOAA landings 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.
A feasibility study for a protein processing plant is more granular than a general manufacturing study because the economics are driven by biological inputs, regulated inspection regimes, and perishable output — each of which introduces risk that a generic model cannot capture. The scope is built around the specific kill class, cut sheet, or species mix the plant intends to run, because yield rates, drop-credit values, and labor requirements differ materially across beef, pork, poultry, and finfish or shellfish operations.
Every element ties directly to the ten-year pro forma so that a reviewer can trace any coverage ratio back to a sourced assumption.
Demand for a processing plant's output is not the same question as consumer demand for protein. The study is answering a narrower question: can this plant, at its designed throughput and price point, place its output with identified or identifiable buyers at margins that support debt service? The analysis is built in two directions simultaneously — supply-side and demand-side — and the two must reconcile.
On the supply side, the study quantifies available livestock or landings using USDA NASS county-level inventory data, NOAA commercial fisheries landings statistics, and state department of agriculture livestock movement records where available. Aquaculture operations are documented through state permitting registries and industry association production surveys. Haul-distance economics are modeled explicitly: live-animal freight cost per hundredweight, or ice-and-fuel cost per pound for seafood, sets the outer boundary of the competitive draw area.
On the demand side, the study identifies the route to market: further-processor contracts, foodservice distributor relationships, retail private-label programs, or export channels. Where contracts exist, they are reviewed for term, volume commitment, and price mechanism. Where the market is open, competitive-supply analysis examines existing licensed processing capacity in the region using FSIS establishment data, state inspection program registries, and USDA Agricultural Marketing Service reports on slaughter and processing volumes. The gap between regional supply capacity and documented or market-derived demand is the space the proposed plant must occupy — and the study tests whether that gap is real, durable, and accessible at the plant's cost structure.
Four categories of assumption move the debt-service-coverage ratio for a protein processing plant more than any others. The financial model is structured so that each can be stressed independently, and the sensitivity tables show the coverage result at every combination the lender is likely to test.
Protein processing plants reach lenders primarily through USDA Business & Industry, SBA 504, and conventional agricultural lending, and each program applies a distinct lens to the feasibility study.
USDA B&I reviewers apply 7 CFR Part 5001 and weight rural economic impact heavily. The study must document job creation by wage tier, demonstrate that the plant serves an identifiable rural community need, and show that the livestock or seafood supply base is local rather than imported from outside the service area. Plants that integrate a producer cooperative or value-added supply chain carry additional credibility under B&I criteria, and Value-Added Producer Grant applications require the study to quantify the price premium or market access benefit to the agricultural producers who supply the plant.
SBA 504 reviewers apply SOP 50 10 8 and focus on the owner-occupied real estate and equipment component. Coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global must be demonstrated across the stress scenarios, and the study must address the job-creation or public-policy goal that justifies the 504 debenture. For processing plants, the public-policy goal is typically rural job creation or support for small and medium agricultural producers.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and place greater weight on the borrower’s existing customer relationships, the term and creditworthiness of offtake agreements, and the liquidation value of specialized processing equipment. The study addresses each concern directly: equipment values are benchmarked against industry auction and appraisal data, and offtake agreements are summarized for term, volume, and counterparty quality. Independence matters here as well — the fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the reviewing agency, and no fee is contingent on the finding.
The engagement begins with a fixed fee quoted within one business day of receiving a project summary. The fee does not change based on the outcome of the study, and no portion is contingent on a favorable finding. That structure is not incidental — it is the condition that makes the study credible to a lender or agency reviewer who knows that a contingent-fee study is compromised before the first assumption is set.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from a complete data room. The data room for a protein processing engagement typically includes the site control documents, equipment specifications and vendor quotes, any existing offtake or supply contracts, the sponsor’s operating history if applicable, and the lender’s term sheet or commitment letter. Rush delivery is available when the lending timeline requires it. The clock starts when the data room is complete, not when the engagement is signed, so sponsors who assemble documentation promptly control the schedule.
Upon delivery, the full engagement — bound narrative report and the linked Excel model — is published to a secure client portal. The financial model remains live in the portal: when a reviewer changes an input, every linked output recalculates. There are no hardcoded values. A lender who wants to test a different utilization ramp, a different live-animal cost, or a different interest rate does not need to request a revised model — the portal model handles it in real time. The engagement closes with an explicit statement of conditions: the findings hold as long as the stated assumptions hold, and any material change to the project scope or capital structure requires the study to be updated before it is submitted to an agency or lender.
The fee is fixed and quoted within one business day of receiving a project summary. It does not vary based on the finding, and no portion is contingent on loan approval. Because scope drives cost, the quote is based on plant size, species or kill class, program requirements, and whether the engagement must meet USDA 7 CFR Part 5001, SBA SOP 50 10 8, or a conventional lender standard.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from a complete data room. The data room for a processing plant typically includes site control documents, equipment quotes, any supply or offtake contracts, and the lender’s term sheet. Rush delivery is available. The timeline is controlled by when the data room is complete — sponsors who assemble documentation promptly set the pace.
The margin is a spread between a volatile raw-material cost and a perishable finished-product price, with high fixed labor and inspection costs in between. Utilization ramps slowly because FSIS inspection scheduling, workforce training, and supply relationships all take time to stabilize. Byproduct credits are real but thin-market and volatile. Any one of those factors can break coverage; the study stress-tests all of them simultaneously.
Yes. USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 requires the study to document employment by job type and wage level and to demonstrate rural economic benefit. For a processing plant, that means quantifying direct plant jobs, the wage premium relative to the local labor market, and the economic effect on the agricultural producers who supply the facility. The study is built to satisfy those criteria as a condition of program compliance, not as a supplement to the financial analysis.
The underlying financial model and market analysis can serve both programs, but the narrative and compliance documentation must be tailored to each. SBA SOP 50 10 8 and USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 have different coverage minimums, stress requirements, and program-purpose documentation standards. A study prepared for one program is reviewed against that program’s criteria; submitting it to a second program without adjustment creates exception risk.
The study draws on USDA NASS county-level livestock inventory data, NOAA commercial fisheries landings statistics, state department of agriculture livestock movement records, and state aquaculture permitting registries where applicable. Haul-distance economics are modeled explicitly to establish the realistic draw area. Supply assumptions are sourced to public data rather than sponsor projections, and competitive processing capacity is verified through FSIS establishment registries and USDA AMS slaughter-volume reports.
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.