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. Recycling and remanufacturing plants are analyzed on feedstock supply contracts, commodity-price exposure on the output side, processing-yield economics, and the regulatory drivers that create or remove demand. 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, commodity recycling price 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-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 recycling or remanufacturing feasibility study is not a generic manufacturing template with the commodity name swapped in. The scope is built around the specific economics of the asset class: feedstock acquisition, processing yield, output-commodity price exposure, and the regulatory framework that determines whether a market exists at all. Every engagement produces a bound narrative and a fully linked Excel workbook with no hardcoded values, so a reviewer can move any input and watch every downstream ratio recalculate in real time. The model is published to a secure client portal and stays live throughout the review period.
Demand analysis for a recycling or remanufacturing plant works on two sides simultaneously: the supply of feedstock coming in and the market for processed output going out. Neither side is assumed; both are documented from identifiable sources.
Feedstock supply is traced through municipal solid-waste tonnage reports filed with state environmental agencies, generator self-reporting under hazardous-waste manifesting programs, industrial source surveys, and, where applicable, executed or letter-of-intent supply contracts. The geographic draw area is defined by haul economics, not by an arbitrary radius, because feedstock transport cost is itself a variable in the processing margin.
Output-market demand is built from end-user offtake agreements where they exist, commodity exchange price series, and trade-association volume data for the relevant material stream—recovered fiber, scrap metal, post-consumer plastics, reclaimed refrigerants, remanufactured components, or others specific to the project. Competitive supply is mapped by identifying permitted and operating facilities within the relevant market geography using state environmental-permit registries and EPA reporting databases. Capacity utilization at existing facilities, where publicly reported, informs the absorption analysis. Where the project depends on regulatory mandates—extended producer responsibility statutes, landfill diversion targets, or procurement preferences—the current statutory text and effective dates are documented, not assumed to remain unchanged.
Four inputs move the debt-service-coverage ratio in a recycling or remanufacturing model more than any others. Identifying them, sourcing them carefully, and stress-testing each one is the analytical work that separates a credible study from a projection. The sensitivity table in every engagement isolates each variable so a lender can see exactly how much margin the project carries against an adverse move.
Lenders and program reviewers approach recycling and remanufacturing projects with a specific set of concerns that differ from conventional manufacturing because of commodity-price volatility, feedstock-supply risk, and regulatory dependency. A study that does not address each concern directly will generate exception items.
SBA reviewers applying SOP 50 10 8 require that the study demonstrate 1.15x operating debt-service coverage and 1.00x global coverage under the base case. For a recycling plant, they will scrutinize whether the output-price assumption is defensible across a commodity cycle, not just at current spot levels, and whether the feedstock supply is contractually secured or merely projected.
USDA Business & Industry reviewers under RD Staff Instruction 5001 weight rural job creation and community economic impact alongside repayment capacity. The study documents employment by position, wage rate against area median, and the multiplier effect on the local economy. USDA reviewers also examine whether the project’s feedstock draw area and output market are consistent with rural program purpose. Value-Added Producer Grant engagements require additional documentation of agricultural producer involvement in the feedstock stream.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and focus heavily on the offtake side: who is buying the processed output, at what price mechanism, and under what contract term. A spot-price-dependent revenue model without offtake agreements will require a more conservative price assumption and a larger stress margin to satisfy conventional underwriting.
The fee for a recycling or remanufacturing feasibility study is fixed, quoted in writing within one business day of inquiry, and is not contingent on the finding. No revision to a determination is made because a sponsor or lender dislikes the conclusion. The fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the reviewing agency.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. A data room for this asset class includes feedstock supply documentation, any executed or draft offtake agreements, equipment specifications and vendor quotes, the proposed site’s environmental permit status, the organizational and ownership structure, and existing financial statements where the sponsor operates a related business. Incomplete data rooms extend the timeline; the engagement clock does not start until the data room is complete. Rush delivery is available and is quoted at the time of engagement.
Once delivered, the financial model is published to a secure client portal. The model remains live: if a lender’s credit officer wants to test a different commodity-price assumption or a slower utilization ramp, every ratio recalculates without manual intervention. This eliminates the back-and-forth of requesting revised exhibits and waiting for a new PDF. The narrative report, the ten-year pro forma, the sensitivity tables, and the explicit statement of conditions are all accessible through the portal for the duration of the review period.
The fee is fixed and quoted in writing within one business day of inquiry. It is not contingent on the study’s finding, and it does not change if the conclusion is unfavorable. Because project scope, program requirements, and data complexity vary, the quote is specific to each engagement rather than published as a range.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. The clock starts when all required documentation—feedstock contracts, equipment quotes, permit status, financial statements—is in hand. Rush delivery is available and is quoted at the time of engagement. Incomplete submissions are the most common cause of delays.
Three factors create underwriting difficulty that does not appear in conventional manufacturing: output-commodity price volatility, feedstock-supply reliability, and regulatory dependency. A plant whose revenue depends on spot recovered-material prices can swing from profitable to cash-flow-negative within a single commodity cycle. A credible study isolates each risk, sources every assumption, and stress-tests coverage at realistic adverse scenarios rather than at base-case projections only.
No. A feasibility study is an independent analytical determination, not a loan-approval instrument. It documents whether the evidence supports a finding of feasibility under the applicable underwriting standard. Loan approval is the lender’s and agency’s decision. No fee is contingent on any finding, and no determination is revised to produce a preferred outcome.
The study requires whatever documentation exists: executed supply contracts, letters of intent, municipal solid-waste tonnage reports, generator surveys, or haul-route analyses. The strength of the feedstock case depends on the quality of the documentation. Projected feedstock volumes without contractual or regulatory support are treated as a risk factor and tested under a reduced-availability scenario in the sensitivity analysis.
Yes. Value-Added Producer Grant engagements are prepared to RD Staff Instruction 5001 and document agricultural producer involvement in the feedstock stream, rural economic impact, job creation by position and wage rate, and repayment capacity. The deliverable meets USDA’s feasibility-study requirements for the grant program and is built to the same fully linked financial-model standard as every other engagement.
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.