Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent truck wash feasibility study consultant preparing lender- and agency-ready analyses for commercial truck washes, fleet-wash facilities, trailer washouts, and specialized tanker or food-grade washout operations. Our studies evaluate corridor truck volume, fleet domiciles, transient and contracted wash demand, competitive wash capacity, pricing, water and wastewater systems, labor, equipment costs, stabilization, debt-service coverage, and downside sensitivity.
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.
Truck-wash feasibility is captive-flow analysis: the truck traffic, fleet domiciles, and travel-center adjacency that generate wash demand, fleet-contract revenue distinguished from transient washes, and — for trailer and tanker washout — the food-grade, livestock, and chemical washout demand that carries premium pricing and regulatory requirements. Water reclaim, wastewater permitting, and discharge compliance are capital and operating items the study models explicitly, because environmental systems define the category's cost structure. Where the wash is programmed as one component of a larger fueling and parking site, the analysis is carried inside a full travel center feasibility analysis rather than modeled in isolation.
Methodology combines truck AADT and fleet-population data, competitive census of wash and washout capacity within the service radius, fleet-contract pipeline review, and equipment and water-system capital benchmarks. The model separates transient, fleet-contract, and washout revenue, with coverage tested under conservative volume against the program standard. Passenger-vehicle tunnels are a different asset with a different revenue model and are scoped separately under express car wash feasibility studies.
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. Roadside and transportation-service projects arrive under SBA 504 and 7(a) for owner-operators — with SOP 50 10 8 special-purpose property treatment addressed where it applies — USDA B&I at qualifying rural locations, and conventional structures for multi-site operators.
The firm has completed a dedicated commercial truck-wash engagement: a six-site investment feasibility and site-selection study for a proposed freestanding commercial truck wash in Northeast Ohio, evaluating candidate locations across four counties on fleet demand, corridor traffic, competitive gap, access, financial performance, and development risk. The work combined weighted multi-criteria decision analysis, fatal-flaw screening, a bottom-up FMCSA fleet-demand model, and a 5,000-iteration Monte Carlo simulation. A Mahoning County site on a major interstate corridor ranked first and was the only one of the six to clear a 15 percent equity IRR in the base case, holding that ranking under every weighting variant tested. The subject concept was a two-to-three-bay facility built around an automated drive-through portal with a hybrid manual bay, a dedicated trailer-interior washout stall carrying food-grade documentation capability, and a water-reclamation system targeting 80 to 85 percent recycling.
That engagement was prepared for the sponsor’s board and investment committee as internal capital-allocation decision support — it was not a lending application, an appraisal, or a permitting opinion, and no financing determination was sought or issued. Read the anonymized case study: commercial truck wash site-selection feasibility study — Mahoning County, Ohio. Truck-wash components have also been evaluated inside larger freight facilities, including a $48,571,365 interstate travel center and truck stop programmed with both truck wash and truck parking. Independence is non-negotiable: determinations follow the evidence and are not revised under pressure.
A truck wash feasibility study consultant analyses whether a specific site can generate enough paid wash volume, at an achievable price, to cover operating cost and debt service. The demand base is commercial vehicle activity, not resident population. The analysis begins with truck AADT and classified counts segregated by vehicle class and directional split, then narrows to the trucks that can physically and commercially be captured.
A truck wash & trailer washout feasibility study is not a repurposed retail or hospitality template. Every section of the report is built around the specific operating mechanics of the asset: captive commercial traffic, fleet-contract structures, washout commodity classifications, and the environmental systems that define both capital cost and regulatory exposure. The narrative addresses site geometry and stacking capacity, because a wash bay that cannot queue trucks without blocking the fuel island or the highway apron has a physical constraint that overrides every demand assumption.
The conditions statement identifies every assumption that must hold for the projected coverage to be achieved, giving the lender a clear list of items to verify at closing.
Truck traffic is not wash demand. A corridor carrying heavy commercial volume can still fail to support a wash if those trucks are through-moves that will not divert, if they are washed at a domicile terminal, or if the fleets running the corridor wash on a schedule the site cannot serve. The study models the conversion explicitly rather than applying a capture percentage to a raw count.
The chain runs: total commercial traffic, then addressable trucks after removing through-moves that will not divert and vehicle classes with no wash requirement, then realistic capture after testing access, dwell, and competitive alternatives, then wash frequency by segment, and finally annual wash transactions. Each step is stated as an assumption with its own support and its own sensitivity range. Where a step depends on a diversion rate that cannot be observed, the study says so and tests the outcome across the plausible band rather than presenting a single figure as measured fact.
Contracted fleet washing and transient walk-in washing behave differently and are modelled separately. Fleet contracts deliver predictable recurring volume at negotiated pricing, usually below rack rate, often with volume commitments, scheduling windows, and invoicing terms. Transient demand carries full pricing but is weather-sensitive, seasonal, and far more volatile.
Unsupported prospective fleet contracts are not modelled as guaranteed revenue. A letter of intent, a term sheet, or an executed agreement is evidence; a sponsor’s expectation that a nearby carrier will sign is not. Where prospective accounts are material to coverage, the study models the project without them and reports whether the deal services debt on transient and committed volume alone. Concentration is tested as well: if a single fleet account carries a large share of projected revenue, the loss of that account is run as a downside case.
Interior washout is a separate business from exterior tractor and trailer washing, with different equipment, different regulatory exposure, and different pricing. Not every truck wash can legally perform every washout type, and the study does not imply otherwise. Reefer and dry-van interiors, livestock trailers, food-grade tankers, and chemical tankers each carry distinct sanitary and disposal requirements, and the permits, wash procedures, and documentation for one do not authorise another.
Where washout is programmed, the analysis addresses the commodity mix realistically available in the corridor, the sanitary standards and wash-ticket documentation the receiving shippers require, effluent handling and disposal obligations, the specialised equipment and heating capacity involved, and washout pricing by category. Kosher and allergen protocols are addressed where the commodity mix requires them. Where a sponsor intends to serve food-grade or chemical washout, the study identifies the approvals that must be in place as conditions rather than assuming them.
Environmental systems define this asset class’s cost structure, and they are modelled as explicit line items rather than folded into a general operating allowance. The analysis covers water consumption per wash by service type, sewer and discharge cost including any surcharge tied to loading, reclaim equipment capital and maintenance, chemical consumption, water heating — frequently the largest single utility line in a northern-climate wash — and permitting cost and timing.
Reclaim is treated as an economic decision, not an assumption. A system targeting a high recycle rate reduces purchased water and discharge volume but adds capital cost, maintenance, and a failure mode that can stop operations. The study models the recycle rate the specified equipment actually achieves in service and tests coverage if it underperforms. Wert-Berater performs feasibility analysis, not environmental engineering: discharge permitting, pretreatment design, and effluent compliance are the responsibility of the project’s licensed engineers, and the study relies on their work rather than substituting for it.
Theoretical bay capacity and realistic throughput are different numbers. A drive-through portal rated at a given cycle time will not deliver that rate across an operating day once arrival patterns, payment, positioning, pre-wash preparation, staffing gaps, and equipment downtime are applied. The study models an effective operating day and effective annual operating days, then derives achievable throughput from the arrival distribution rather than from equipment specification.
Break-even is calculated for the specific project: the wash volume required to cover operating expense, and the higher volume required to cover operating expense plus debt service at the proposed structure. Both are expressed against the site’s own pricing and revenue mix and compared with the projected volume to show headroom. No universal washes-per-day benchmark is published, because a two-bay exterior wash on a fuel island and a multi-bay facility with food-grade washout have no shared threshold.
Demand for a truck wash is not derived from population or rooftop counts. It is derived from truck movement, fleet geography, and the competitive supply of wash and washout capacity that those trucks can realistically access. The analysis begins with classified traffic counts from state department of transportation continuous-count stations and project-specific tube counts, which establish the volume and class mix of trucks passing the site. AADT alone is insufficient; the study requires directional splits and peak-period distributions to assess whether the site is positioned on the dominant travel direction for the corridors it serves.
Fleet-population data is assembled from FMCSA carrier registration records, which identify domiciled fleets within the primary and secondary service radius by fleet size and equipment type. Washout demand is cross-referenced against commodity flow data available through state agricultural departments, livestock market records, and tank-wash association directories, because the washout market is not homogeneous — a site permitted only for food-grade service cannot capture chemical or hazmat washout revenue, and the study does not credit revenue the site is not licensed to earn.
Competitive supply is counted through a field census of operating wash and washout facilities, supplemented by state environmental discharge permits and business licensing registries, which surface capacity that may not appear in commercial databases. Travel-center fuel-volume data, where publicly available through chain disclosures or state fuel-tax filings, is used to calibrate capture-rate assumptions against comparable sites.
Four inputs move the debt-service-coverage ratio for a truck wash or washout project more than any others. The study tests each one explicitly, and the sensitivity table shows the coverage result at every combination of stress. A lender reviewing the model can isolate any single variable and observe its effect without recalculating by hand, because no value in the workbook is hardcoded.
Lenders and agencies apply general underwriting standards to every project, but truck wash and washout facilities raise a specific set of questions that generic feasibility studies do not answer. Understanding what each program requires for this asset class prevents the study from being returned for supplemental information.
Under SBA SOP 50 10 8, the primary question is whether the facility qualifies as a special-purpose property. A standalone truck wash with limited alternative-use potential may receive that designation, which affects collateral treatment and loan structure. The feasibility study addresses this directly by documenting the property characteristics and the market evidence relevant to the determination, without making the determination itself, which belongs to the lender.
USDA Business & Industry engagements at rural locations require the study to document that the project serves a rural area as defined under 7 CFR Part 5001 and that the economic benefit — including employment and service to agricultural shippers — is substantiated. Washout facilities serving livestock and agricultural commodity haulers have a natural alignment with USDA program objectives, and the study frames that alignment with evidence rather than assertion.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and focus on contract concentration risk: a project whose pro forma depends on one or two fleet contracts is underwritten differently from one with diversified transient volume. The study models contract concentration explicitly, including the coverage result if the largest single contract is removed from the revenue base entirely.
The engagement begins with a fixed fee quoted in writing within one business day of the initial inquiry. The fee does not change if the analysis is more complex than anticipated, and no portion of it is contingent on the finding. A sponsor who needs a favorable conclusion to justify the fee will not receive one; the fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the reviewing agency.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from the date the data room is complete. The data room for a truck wash or washout project typically includes the site survey or plat, any existing traffic studies, fleet-contract letters of intent or executed agreements, equipment bids, utility service confirmations, environmental or pretreatment permit applications or approvals, and the proposed loan structure. Rush delivery is available when the closing schedule requires it.
Every engagement is published to a secure client portal where the linked Excel model remains live. When a lender, agency reviewer, or SBA loan officer changes an input — a lower capture rate, a higher interest rate, a reduced washout price — the pro forma, coverage ratios, and sensitivity tables recalculate instantly. This eliminates the back-and-forth of requesting revised runs and allows the credit file to reflect the reviewer's own stress assumptions rather than the analyst's.
The final deliverable is a bound narrative report accompanied by the Excel workbook, an explicit conditions statement, and ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld industry data for the applicable NAICS classification. The report is formatted to move directly into the credit file or agency submission package without reformatting by the lender.
Related project types analysed by the same team, each with its own demand model and its own report structure:
The consultant analyses whether a specific site can produce enough paid wash volume at an achievable price to cover operating cost and debt service. That means corridor truck AADT and vehicle classification, fleet domiciles and carrier power units within the draw radius, competing wash capacity and pricing, the split between contracted and transient demand, washout demand by commodity where applicable, bay throughput, labor, equipment, water and wastewater economics, and debt-service coverage under base and downside cases.
Demand is built from commercial vehicle activity, not resident population. The model starts with classified truck counts by FHWA class and direction, removes through-moves that will not divert and vehicle classes with no wash requirement to reach addressable trucks, applies a capture rate tested against access, dwell time, and competitive alternatives, then applies wash frequency by segment to reach annual wash transactions. Every step is stated as an assumption with its own support and sensitivity range.
Contracted volume is modelled separately from transient volume, at negotiated pricing rather than rack rate, with contract term, volume commitment, scheduling windows, and termination rights reviewed. Only supported contracts are carried in the base case: an executed agreement, a term sheet, or a letter of intent is evidence, while a sponsor’s expectation that a nearby carrier will sign is not. Where prospective accounts are material, the study reports whether the project services debt without them, and concentration risk is run as a downside case.
Transient demand is projected from capturable corridor traffic rather than from total traffic, then adjusted for the factors that actually govern walk-in volume: ease of ingress and egress for a tractor-trailer, visibility and signage, queue space, hours of operation, and the pricing and condition of competing washes. Transient volume is weather-sensitive and seasonal, so it is modelled with a monthly distribution and stress-tested rather than carried as a flat annual average.
Interior washout is analysed as a separate business line from exterior washing, with its own demand base, equipment, pricing, and regulatory exposure. The analysis identifies the commodity mix realistically available in the corridor — reefer and dry-van interiors, livestock, food-grade, or chemical — the sanitary and documentation standards receiving shippers require, effluent handling and disposal obligations, and washout pricing by category. The study does not assume that a wash equipped for one washout category may perform another.
Tanker washout is segmented by commodity, because food-grade, chemical, and petroleum tankers are not interchangeable demand and generally cannot be served by the same equipment or under the same approvals. The analysis examines the tanker fleets operating the corridor, the shippers and receivers generating wash tickets, the specialised heating and cleaning capacity required, the wash-ticket documentation and sanitary protocols involved, and disposal obligations. Required approvals are identified as conditions rather than assumed to be in place.
They are modelled as explicit line items: water consumption per wash by service type, sewer and discharge cost including any loading-based surcharge, chemical consumption, water heating — often the largest single utility line in a northern-climate wash — and reclaim equipment capital and maintenance. Reclaim is treated as an economic decision rather than an assumption: the study models the recycle rate the specified equipment achieves in service and tests coverage if it underperforms.
There is no universal answer, and the study does not publish one. Supportable bay count is derived from the site’s own addressable demand, the arrival distribution across the operating day, realistic throughput per bay after positioning and payment time, and the capacity and pricing of competing washes already serving the corridor. A bay count that clears coverage on a captive fuel-island site may be unsupportable for a standalone facility drawing independently on the same corridor.
Break-even is calculated twice for the specific project: the wash volume required to cover operating expense, and the higher volume required to cover operating expense plus debt service at the proposed loan structure. Both are expressed against the project’s own pricing and revenue mix, then compared with projected volume to show headroom. Because pricing, service mix, and cost structure differ by facility, no generic washes-per-day threshold is published.
The firm needs the site address and site plan, the proposed bay configuration and equipment specification, the construction and equipment budget with supporting bids, any executed or prospective fleet-contract documentation, proposed pricing by service, projected staffing, utility confirmations including water and sewer availability and rates, and the loan amount and program under consideration. Where washout is programmed, permitting status and the intended commodity categories are needed as well.
The fee is fixed and quoted in writing within one business day of the initial inquiry. It does not change based on the finding, and no portion is contingent on approval. Because scope varies by project complexity — a single exterior wash bay differs from a multi-bay washout facility with food-grade and chemical permits — the quote is project-specific. Contact the firm with the loan amount and program, and a fee is returned promptly.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from the date the data room is complete. Rush delivery is available when the closing schedule requires a shorter window. The most common cause of delay is an incomplete data room; projects with executed fleet-contract letters of intent, equipment bids, and utility confirmations in hand at the start of the engagement consistently close within the standard window.
Yes. Studies are prepared to SBA SOP 50 10 8 standards, and special-purpose property treatment is addressed where it applies to a wash facility. The report is written for the lender and the agency as intended users, with fiduciary duty running to them rather than to the borrower. A feasibility study supports the credit decision by testing whether the project can service the proposed debt; it does not approve the loan, and no determination is contingent on the financing outcome.
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.