Food production facility feasibility study.

A private client wanted to understand whether a dedicated food production facility was commercially and operationally feasible before committing to property, equipment, approvals, and launch planning.

The brief.

Cleresdyne Advisory was asked to prepare a feasibility report for a proposed food production facility. The assignment sat before lease or capex commitment: enough technical detail to decide what kind of facility would be needed, what location constraints mattered, how large the operation should be, and which risks had to be resolved before moving forward.

The engagement.

The work translated a product idea into an operating facility brief. The report covered:

• Production model. Receiving, raw material storage, preparation, batching, cooking or processing, cooling, filling, packing, finished goods storage, dispatch, cleaning, and waste flow.
• Location criteria. Industrial versus retail-adjacent suitability, logistics access, authority approval path, staff access, loading constraints, lease risk, and utility availability.
• Facility sizing. Throughput assumptions, batch logic, daily and weekly production targets, storage days, equipment footprint, circulation, support rooms, and future expansion allowance.
• Utilities and compliance. Food safety zoning, drainage, ventilation, chilled storage, water treatment, pest control, electrical or gas load assumptions, and practical approval risks.
• Commercial framing. Capex bands, operating assumptions, staffing implications, lead times, staging options, and the decision conditions for proceed, pause, or redesign.

What the study clarified.

The key finding was that the project could not be judged as a simple kitchen fit-out. It needed to be treated as a production facility, where process flow, storage, loading, utilities, cleaning, and compliance could drive feasibility as much as the production equipment itself.

Location became a gating decision rather than a property search preference. The right site had to support approvals, utility load, delivery movement, dispatch discipline, and future expansion. A cheaper or smaller unit would not necessarily reduce risk if it forced third-party storage, poor flow, overtime production, or premature retrofitting.

Sizing was also treated as a strategic choice. The study compared the space required for initial production against the space required for a controlled scale-up, so the client could avoid designing a facility that would become constrained shortly after launch.

Output.

The final report gave the client a structured decision document: production assumptions, site-selection criteria, area schedule, utility and equipment assumptions, approval risks, implementation sequence, and a recommendation on the conditions that would need to be satisfied before committing capital.