Brewery feasibility study.
Craft brewery is a federally licensed alcohol-beverage manufacturing category with active SBA 7(a) and 504 lending, USDA B&I participation in rural and small-town markets, and conventional bank construction at the regional brewery end. This page sets out what a bankable brewery feasibility study contains, the barrel production and taproom revenue methodology that anchors it, and how the deliverable is scoped sub-segment by sub-segment.
TTB & state licensing · Barrel production projection · Taproom & distribution revenue · 4 sub-segments · 3,000 words
Craft brewery operates as a federally licensed alcohol-beverage manufacturing category under U.S. Treasury Department Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) regulation, with overlapping state and local regulatory frameworks that govern alcohol production, distribution, and on-premise consumption. The category spans a wide format spectrum — from small brewpubs producing 200 to 1,500 barrels annually for primarily on-premise consumption to regional craft breweries producing 30,000 to 200,000-plus barrels annually for multi-state distribution — with material operational and economic differences across the format spectrum that the feasibility methodology has to address explicitly.
The structural reason the feasibility study is mandatory in brewery lending parallels the hospitality and restaurant pattern. SBA's standard operating procedure (SOP 50 10 8) treats breweries as special-purpose property reflecting the alcohol-beverage manufacturing infrastructure (brewhouse, fermentation vessels, packaging line, cold storage, taproom build-out) that serves the brewery use specifically. Conventional bank construction lenders apply parallel standards. USDA B&I program guidelines support rural-area craft beverage production with the program's rural economic development mandate. The asset class's outcomes depend on a compact set of analytical variables — TTB licensing pathway, production capacity sizing, taproom revenue projection, package distribution strategy, operator skill in both brewing and business operations — and each variable is measurable, verifiable, and consequential to the loan.
A bankable brewery feasibility study runs across nine analytical components: TTB and state licensing pathway analysis, production capacity sizing tied to format and market, barrel volume projection across operating years, taproom revenue analysis at the on-premise component, package distribution revenue projection across self-distribution and wholesale channels, capital cost build-up tied to the chosen format and scale, operating expense projection with explicit treatment of raw material costs (malt, hops, yeast, packaging), operator skill and brewing capability assessment, and stabilized cash flow modeling against the lender's DSCR threshold. This page sets out the methodology each component requires.
Why brewery feasibility is lender-mandatory.
Brewery carries the SBA special-purpose property treatment under SOP 50 10 8 because the build-out — brewhouse equipment (mash tun, brew kettle, hot liquor tank), fermentation and conditioning vessels, cold storage infrastructure, packaging line (canning or bottling), wastewater treatment capability for higher-volume production, and frequently taproom and tasting room build-out — serves the brewing use specifically rather than supporting alternative commercial use. The special-purpose treatment triggers the third-party feasibility study requirement on new construction, substantial renovation, and conversion.
The alternative-use limitation is meaningful in brewery underwriting. A built-out brewery facility cannot easily reposition to alternative commercial use without removing substantial equipment, modifying utility infrastructure (water, steam, glycol cooling, wastewater), and reconfiguring the building for alternative production or service use. The collateral economics depend on the operating cash flow of the brewing business itself, and the feasibility study's projection of that cash flow is consequential to the loan.
Conventional bank construction lenders apply parallel standards. Almost no regional or money-center bank will fund a brewery construction loan or substantial-renovation acquisition without an independent third-party feasibility study, with most banks specifying analyst qualifications, market study scope, deliverable depth, and frequently the operator's brewing experience documentation in commitment letter terms. The craft beer industry's documented growth-and-consolidation cycle through the 2010s and 2020s has produced heightened lender focus on brewery underwriting reflecting the category's elevated failure rate at smaller-scale entrants and the structural market saturation in many trade areas.
USDA B&I program guidelines support rural-area craft brewery development as a recognized rural economic development category. USDA-eligible breweries in rural areas (cities under 50,000 population plus rural counties) qualify for USDA B&I program participation, with the program's federal guarantee enabling materially favorable loan terms for rural craft beverage production.
The mandatory practice has produced a methodological convention in U.S. brewery feasibility that runs across analyst firms with limited variance, anchored by industry data sources (Brewers Association annual industry reports, NielsenIQ and Circana craft beer tracking, IRI scan data, TTB production statistics, Feasibility Study Consultant database) and by primary research with comparable craft breweries in the trade area or in adjacent comparable markets.
The lender matrix for brewery.
The matrix below sets out what each capital source requires for a brewery transaction. The matrix anchors the deliverable scope — the analyst builds to the union of requirements across the channels actually in play on the deal.
| Capital source | Feasibility required | Typical loan size | DSCR threshold | Format fit | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBA 7(a) | Mandatory under SOP 50 10 8 | $250K–$5M | 1.20x–1.25x | Brewpub, microbrewery, smaller regional | Owner-operator borrower; 25-year on real estate, 10-year on brewing equipment |
| SBA 504 | Mandatory under SOP 50 10 8 | $1M–$5.5M (504 third) | 1.20x–1.25x | New construction, microbrewery and regional expansion | Real-estate-heavy projects; 25-year debenture on real estate |
| USDA B&I | Mandatory under program guidelines | $500K–$25M | 1.20x–1.30x | Rural / small-town microbrewery, regional craft brewery | Rural area eligibility; craft beverage as rural economic development |
| Conventional bank construction | Mandatory at almost all banks | $2M–$25M | 1.25x–1.40x | Regional craft brewery, large microbrewery, expansion | Bank or borrower engages, bank approves scope |
| Specialty craft-beverage lenders | Mandatory third-party study | $3M–$30M+ | 1.30x–1.50x | Regional craft brewery, multi-state distribution | Live Oak Bank, BofA Craft Brewing Group, certain specialty banks |
| Private credit / debt fund | Bridge, value-add, multi-unit acquisition | $3M–$50M+ | 1.10x–1.30x | Multi-brand acquisition, brewery rollups, repositioning | Bridge debt sizing analysis |
The capital-source layer determines the analytical depth in every other section of the deliverable. An SBA 7(a) study on an owner-operator first-brewery brewpub follows a different scope than a conventional bank study on a regional craft brewery's multi-state distribution expansion, even though both are nominally "brewery feasibility studies." The methodology framework is consistent across the spectrum; the analytical depth, the comp set scope, the distribution analysis, and the projection-period horizon scale with the deal complexity.
TTB licensing, state regulation, and the three-tier system.
Federal and state alcohol-beverage regulation is the structural input to brewery feasibility that institutional capital examines as a first-order requirement. The methodology has to address three regulatory layers.
Federal TTB licensing runs as the foundational requirement. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau issues Brewer's Notice (TTB Form 5130.10) approvals authorizing alcohol production at the specific facility, with the application process typically running 90 to 270 days from initial filing to approval depending on case complexity and TTB workload. Brewer's Notice approval covers the production operation; separate TTB approvals govern label registration (Certificate of Label Approval, COLA), formula approvals for non-standard beer styles, and excise tax accounting. The deliverable documents the project's TTB licensing pathway with realistic timeline projection that the financing structure accommodates.
State licensing layers on top of federal TTB. Each state issues separate brewery manufacturing licenses (frequently called brewer's licenses or brewery permits) with state-specific requirements covering production capacity tiers, operational restrictions, distribution scope, and on-premise consumption permissions. States vary materially in licensing complexity: some operate streamlined craft-friendly frameworks (Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Maine), others operate restrictive frameworks that constrain craft brewery operations (certain Southern and Midwest states with strong wholesaler-tier political influence). The feasibility documents the state licensing pathway, the timeline, and the operational scope the license supports.
The three-tier system structures U.S. alcohol distribution at the state level. Established federal alcohol policy and state implementation typically requires separation between alcohol producers (brewers), wholesalers (distributors), and retailers (bars, restaurants, off-premise stores) with the brewery prohibited from owning or directly controlling distribution and retail operations beyond limited exceptions. The three-tier framework drives the brewery's distribution strategy decision: which products distribute through wholesalers, which through self-distribution where state law permits, and which through direct-to-consumer taproom sales.
Self-distribution permissions vary by state. Some states permit breweries to self-distribute (deliver directly to retail accounts) without engaging wholesaler partners, with self-distribution typically capped at production volumes (frequently 5,000 to 25,000 barrels annually depending on state). Other states prohibit self-distribution entirely, requiring all wholesale distribution through licensed wholesalers. The state self-distribution permission shapes the brewery's go-to-market strategy and the corresponding capital and operational planning.
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) shipping operates under separate state regulatory frameworks that have expanded materially through the 2020s. Some states permit DTC beer shipping under brewer's licenses; most do not, restricting brewery DTC sales to taproom on-premise consumption and limited carry-out subject to state-specific limits. The deliverable documents the relevant state's DTC permission and the corresponding revenue opportunity.
Production capacity, barrel projection, and taproom volume.
Production capacity sizing and barrel projection across operating years run as central analytical conclusions in brewery feasibility. The methodology has to balance the brewery's installed production capacity against the projected demand to avoid both undersizing (constraining revenue) and oversizing (carrying excess capital and operating cost).
The standard U.S. brewery production unit is the barrel (BBL), equal to 31 U.S. gallons. Brewery production capacity is typically described in annual barrel capacity at the installed brewhouse and fermentation infrastructure. Production scale tiers run across recognized industry categories. Brewpubs typically operate 3 to 15 BBL brewhouses with annual production of 200 to 1,500 barrels. Microbreweries (the largest U.S. craft brewery category by count) operate 10 to 30 BBL brewhouses with annual production of 1,000 to 15,000 barrels. Regional craft breweries operate 30 to 100-plus BBL brewhouses with annual production of 15,000 to 200,000-plus barrels.
Installed capacity utilization runs as a structural underwriting variable. Brewpubs and small microbreweries typically operate at 50 to 75 percent of installed capacity at stabilization reflecting the seasonal demand pattern, the SKU variety the operating model carries, and operational efficiency at smaller scale. Larger microbreweries and regional craft breweries operate at 70 to 90 percent capacity utilization at stabilization reflecting more efficient production scheduling and steadier demand patterns from package distribution.
Barrel projection runs across two analytical pathways. Production-side projection (the demand-allocation approach) projects how much beer the brewery sells across its distribution channels and back-solves the production volume from demand. The methodology projects taproom volume (on-premise plus carry-out), self-distribution volume, wholesaler-distributed volume, contract production volume where applicable, and combines to produce projected annual barrel sales. Production volume slightly exceeds sales reflecting product loss, dump batches, and quality control discards (typically 2 to 5 percent of production).
Capacity-side projection (the supply-allocation approach) sizes the installed capacity to the projected demand with explicit reserve capacity for demand growth and operational flexibility. The methodology works backward from the projected stabilized demand to determine the brewhouse size, fermentation vessel count, conditioning tank capacity, and packaging line throughput that supports the projected operation.
Taproom barrel volume is the foundational demand pool at most craft breweries. Stabilized taproom volume at established brewpubs typically runs 400 to 1,200 barrels annually (sold across draft pours, growler and crowler fills, and limited carry-out). Established microbreweries with active taprooms typically sell 600 to 2,000 barrels annually through the taproom. Regional craft breweries operating production-focused models typically sell 200 to 1,000 barrels through the taproom with the balance distributed through wholesale and self-distribution channels. The taproom barrel volume drives a meaningful share of total brewery revenue because per-barrel revenue at taproom sales materially exceeds wholesale per-barrel revenue.
Revenue stack: taproom, package distribution, contract production.
Brewery revenue runs across multiple channels with materially different per-barrel revenue economics. The feasibility documents the projected channel mix and the resulting revenue stack.
Taproom revenue runs as the structural revenue line at most craft breweries. Per-barrel taproom revenue typically runs $1,200 to $2,400 in 2026 institutional pricing, reflecting draft pour pricing (typically $6 to $9 per pint with 250 to 280 pints per barrel at standard pour size), growler and crowler fills, limited package carry-out at retail-equivalent pricing, and merchandise (apparel, glassware, brewery branded items) that supplements the beverage revenue. Taproom margin runs materially higher than wholesale margin because the brewery captures the wholesale, distributor, and retailer margin tiers all within the single on-premise transaction.
Package distribution revenue (the wholesale channel) runs as the secondary revenue line at microbreweries and the primary revenue line at regional craft breweries. Per-barrel wholesale revenue typically runs $200 to $450, reflecting the brewery's wholesale price to distributors (after the distributor's margin and the retailer's margin captures further markup before the consumer purchase). Package distribution at scale provides the volume foundation for regional breweries but at materially compressed per-barrel economics versus taproom.
Self-distribution revenue (where state law permits) runs between taproom and wholesale per-barrel economics. Per-barrel self-distribution revenue typically runs $300 to $550, reflecting the brewery's direct sale to retailers without engaging the wholesale distributor tier. Self-distribution captures the wholesaler margin tier (typically 25 to 35 percent of the retail-shelf price) at the cost of the brewery operating its own distribution logistics (delivery vehicles, sales staff, retailer relationships).
Contract production revenue (the brewery produces beer for other brands under contract) runs as a supplemental revenue line at breweries with excess capacity, typical at regional craft breweries with installed capacity exceeding their own brand demand. Per-barrel contract production revenue typically runs $80 to $200, reflecting the brewery's production-only contribution without brand value or distribution margin. Contract production fills capacity utilization gaps and captures incremental revenue at low marginal cost.
Alternating proprietorship arrangements — where multiple brewing brands share production facilities under TTB-approved alternating proprietor arrangements — produce a related revenue category at facilities operating as production hosts for multiple TTB-licensed brewing companies. The host facility captures facility fees, production support, and frequently equipment rental income across the alternating proprietors.
Combined annual revenue at stabilized craft breweries varies dramatically by scale and channel mix. Brewpubs typically produce $800,000 to $3 million annual revenue. Microbreweries typically produce $1.5 million to $10 million. Regional craft breweries produce $10 million to $80 million-plus depending on production scale and distribution geography.
The deliverable documents the revenue projection at the channel level with explicit per-barrel revenue assumptions for each channel, the projected channel mix across operating years, and the resulting stabilized revenue against which the underwriting tests.
Capital cost benchmarks by format.
Capital cost in brewery development varies dramatically by format and scale, with the variation reflecting brewhouse and equipment scope, packaging infrastructure, taproom build-out, and site requirements.
Brewpub new construction or conversion typically runs $1.2 million to $3.5 million in total project cost, including brewhouse equipment ($300,000 to $800,000 depending on capacity), fermentation and conditioning vessels ($200,000 to $500,000), cold storage and dispensing systems, taproom and kitchen build-out (frequently the largest cost category at full-service brewpub configurations), site work, and soft costs.
Microbrewery new construction typically runs $1.8 million to $6 million in total project cost, with the variation reflecting brewhouse scale and packaging investment. Production-focused microbreweries without active packaging investment run $1.8 million to $3 million. Microbreweries with canning line investment run $2.5 million to $4.5 million (canning lines themselves running $300,000 to $700,000 for institutional craft brewery capability, with supporting infrastructure adding another $200,000 to $400,000). Microbreweries with substantial taproom programming and event-space build-out run $4 million to $6 million.
Regional craft brewery new construction typically runs $6 million to $30 million-plus in total project cost, with the variation reflecting brewhouse scale (50 to 100-plus BBL brewhouses at $1.5 million to $4 million), fermentation and conditioning capacity (frequently 20 to 60 vessels at $80,000 to $250,000 each), packaging line infrastructure (high-speed canning lines at $1 million to $3 million, bottling lines at similar capital ranges), wastewater treatment infrastructure that production scale requires, warehouse and distribution support, and frequently substantial taproom and brand-experience build-out. Major regional craft brewery campuses with multiple taproom and event-space components reach $40 million to $80 million-plus.
Contract and alternating proprietorship facilities typically run $4 million to $20 million in total project cost, depending on host capacity and the breadth of supporting infrastructure (separate fermentation capacity for alternating proprietors, separate cold storage, separate packaging access). Contract production facilities operate without taproom or brand-experience programming, concentrating capital investment in production infrastructure.
The financial projection's debt sizing test runs against the per-project cost basis. SBA 7(a) typically supports projects up to $5 million in total loan size, applicable to brewpubs and smaller microbreweries; SBA 504 supports up to $5.5 million in 504-second financing within the bank-first / 504-second / equity 50/40/10 structure, frequently structured against $10 million to $12 million total project cost on microbreweries and smaller regional craft breweries. USDA B&I supports up to $25 million in rural-area projects. Conventional bank construction and specialty craft-beverage lenders support the larger end at typical 65 to 75 percent loan-to-cost.
Distribution strategy: wholesale versus self-distribution.
Distribution strategy is a structural operational decision affecting every other variable in regional craft brewery economics. The feasibility's distribution analysis runs against three structural questions.
The wholesale-distribution decision applies in states permitting both wholesaler-distributed and self-distributed brewery operations. Wholesale distribution engages a licensed wholesaler partner who delivers brewery products to retail accounts, manages retail relationships, and provides market support; the brewery transfers products to the wholesaler at wholesale price and the wholesaler captures the margin between wholesale price and retail-shelf price. Wholesale distribution scales the brewery's reach across geographic markets without requiring the brewery to operate logistics infrastructure but at compressed per-barrel revenue.
Self-distribution alternative engages the brewery operating its own delivery and retail-relationship function, with the brewery capturing the wholesaler margin tier directly. Self-distribution requires delivery vehicle investment, sales staff, retailer account management, and operational scale that produces the throughput supporting the staffing. Most breweries pursuing self-distribution operate at 1,500 to 8,000 barrels annually with self-distribution capturing $300,000 to $1.5 million in incremental margin annually versus wholesale alternative.
The hybrid distribution model combines both channels — wholesale partners for geographic markets beyond practical self-distribution reach, with self-distribution serving the brewery's immediate trade area. Many regional craft breweries operate hybrid models with self-distribution within 50 to 100 miles of the brewery (where direct delivery is operationally efficient) and wholesale distribution for the broader geographic footprint.
Wholesaler selection runs as the second structural decision when wholesale distribution is part of the strategy. Major wholesaler tiers — Anheuser-Busch InBev's distribution network, Molson Coors' distribution network, and the major independent craft-focused wholesalers (Manhattan Beer, Eagle Rock Brewing, Reyes Beverage Group, others) — provide different levels of craft brand support, retail account access, and brewery operational engagement. Smaller regional wholesalers frequently provide stronger craft brand attention but at narrower geographic reach. The deliverable documents the wholesaler-selection rationale with explicit treatment of the distributor's craft portfolio depth, retail account access, and brand support capability.
Geographic distribution scope runs as the third decision. Breweries distribute within their state (in-state distribution capturing the brewery's home market), to adjacent states (regional distribution extending 200 to 400 miles), or nationally (multi-state distribution covering 10-plus states). Geographic scope drives the brewery's marketing investment, wholesaler relationship complexity, and operational logistics. The feasibility documents the projected geographic distribution at year-one through stabilization with explicit treatment of the wholesaler partnerships supporting each geographic market.
Craft beer market context and operator skill.
Craft beer market context affects brewery feasibility outcomes more than in most CRE asset classes because the category has progressed through a mature growth-and-consolidation cycle that the analytical framework has to address explicitly.
The U.S. craft beer category grew rapidly from approximately 1,500 breweries in 2008 to approximately 9,000 breweries by 2022, with the brewery count plateauing through the 2022 to 2026 period as new openings have been offset by closures in a maturing competitive environment. Total craft beer market share grew from approximately 4 percent of total U.S. beer consumption in 2008 to approximately 13 percent by 2022, with the share stabilizing through the 2020s as the category's structural growth has slowed. The 2026 market environment carries materially more competitive density and materially less growth tailwind than the 2010 to 2018 craft beer growth window.
Geographic market saturation varies meaningfully by region. The Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountain, New England, and select Midwest markets carry brewery density at 6 to 12-plus breweries per 100,000 adult population — meaningful saturation that constrains new brewery economics at typical positioning. Sun Belt markets and parts of the South and lower-Midwest carry brewery density at 2 to 5 breweries per 100,000 adult population, with structurally more development opportunity remaining. The feasibility documents the trade area's specific brewery density and the corresponding competitive environment.
Style preferences and consumer trends evolve continuously in craft beer. The IPA and hazy IPA category has dominated craft consumer preference since the mid-2010s, with material continuing concentration in the IPA family through 2026. Lagers, pilsners, and other lighter-style beers have grown share through the 2020s as craft consumers diversify. Hard seltzer, non-alcoholic beer, and craft cocktail categories have expanded as adjacent beverage categories that breweries increasingly compete against. The deliverable documents the projected portfolio mix and the trade area's specific style preferences from primary research and from comparable brewery performance.
Operator skill is the structural underwriting variable beyond the market context. Brewery operators require two structurally distinct skill domains. Brewing technical skill — recipe development, production process management, quality control, batch consistency — drives the product quality that consumer preference depends on. Business operations skill — sales and distribution management, taproom hospitality operations, marketing and brand building, financial management — drives the commercial success that production quality cannot independently produce.
Founder-brewer operating models combine both skills in the founding team, frequently with one founder bringing brewing capability and one or more bringing business operations capability. Hired-brewer operating models engage experienced brewmasters as employees while the founding sponsor brings business operations focus. Brewmaster credentials (Brewing Science programs at UC Davis, Siebel Institute, certain accredited brewing programs) provide credentialed brewing capability where founder-brewer experience is limited.
The deliverable documents the operator's experience profile across both skill domains, the brewery's staffing structure, and any consulting or technical engagement supporting the operator's capability gaps. Lender reviewers examine this section closely because brewery underwriting at smaller scales depends substantially on the operator's brewing and business capability development.
Four brewery sub-segments, each with a distinct study scope.
The brewery asset class spans four structurally distinct sub-segments, each with its own operational model, capital cost basis, distribution profile, and feasibility scope. The sub-pillar pages cover each in operational depth.
Brewpubs — combining brewing operation with full-service restaurant under unified ownership and shared site infrastructure — represent the most hospitality-integrated brewery format. Brewpubs typically produce 200 to 1,500 barrels annually, with the majority of beer consumed on-premise at the integrated restaurant and only limited package distribution. Microbreweries — operating primarily as beer production businesses with active taprooms but with the production-and-taproom model as the operating focus — represent the largest brewery category by count in the U.S. craft beer industry. Regional craft breweries — operating at production scale supporting multi-state wholesale distribution, with taprooms operating as brand-experience destinations alongside the production-and-distribution business — represent the established institutional end of craft beer production. Contract and alternating proprietorship arrangements — multiple brewing brands sharing production facilities under TTB-approved structures — represent a distinct sub-segment that allows brand operators to access production capability without owning production infrastructure.
The four sub-pillar pages cover each in detail. The grid below routes to all four.
Brewpub
Brewing operation combined with full-service restaurant under unified ownership — 200 to 1,500 BBL annually, on-premise weighted.
Microbrewery
Production-and-taproom focus — 1,000 to 15,000 BBL annually with mix of taproom and package distribution.
Regional craft brewery
Production scale supporting multi-state wholesale distribution — 15,000 to 200,000+ BBL annually with brand-experience taprooms.
Contract & alternating proprietorship
Multiple TTB-licensed brewing brands sharing production facilities under approved structures.
Brewery feasibility, applied.
Three engagements where the headline metric pointed one way and the analysis pointed another.
The plant could make the volume. The volume couldn't make the margin.
A 30-barrel production brewery. Why channel mix — taproom vs. distribution margin — not production volume, governed the coverage.
The bigger brewhouse looked like the safer bet. The smaller one carried the loan.
A taproom-first acquisition. Why utilization and capital efficiency, not installed capacity, drove the returns.
The town was too small. The trade area and the program weren't.
A rural brewpub. Why the drive-time trade area and the USDA B&I structure made it the stronger deal.
Brewery engagements.
Brewery, taproom, and brewpub feasibility engagements, by format and capital source.
Production Microbrewery with Taproom, Chittenden County, Vermont
Vermont · SBA 7(a)
Did Burlington-area craft-beer demand and self-distribution capacity support 4,200 barrels annual production.
View all brewery engagements →
Browse the full brewery engagement set by format, state, and loan program.
Brewery feasibility study — FAQ.
Building, expanding, or financing a brewery?
Get a feasibility study scoped to your format and capital source — SBA 7(a), SBA 504, USDA B&I, or conventional bank — with the production projection, taproom and distribution revenue analysis, and TTB licensing assessment that institutional craft-beverage underwriting requires.
Continue across the brewery ecosystem.
SBA loan programs
SBA 7(a) and 504 — the dominant capital sources for owner-operator brewpub and microbrewery development.
USDA loan programs
USDA B&I guaranteed loans for rural-area craft brewery development under the rural economic development mandate.
Bank construction lending
Regional and money-center bank construction execution for regional craft brewery and large microbrewery projects.
Restaurant feasibility study
Adjacent special-purpose category — brewpubs sit at the intersection of brewery and full-service restaurant feasibility scope.
Bankable feasibility study framework
Cross-asset methodology framework that anchors every Feasibility Study Consultant deliverable.
Where we prepare brewery feasibility studies
State-specific brewery feasibility studies are available in the markets listed below.