A feasibility study is the least glamorous document in a wash project and the most consequential. Done right, it’s the foundation the loan, the site plan, and the equipment order all stand on. Done as a formality, it’s a template with your town’s name pasted in — and lenders can tell the difference in about four pages.
The core sections
A lender-grade study contains, at minimum: market analysis — truck traffic on the corridor, fleet and depot density in the draw radius, using sources like FHWA freight corridor data; competition mapping — every wash in the radius, its format, pricing, and observable volume; site assessment — access geometry for tractor-trailers, utilities, drainage, zoning; format recommendation — which wash type the demand actually supports; financial pro forma — revenue build-up, operating costs, and sensitivity cases; and capital budget — the site-specific cost model, not a national average.
How to spot a worthless study
Three tells. The traffic numbers are national or state averages rather than corridor counts. The revenue model works backward from the answer the developer wanted. And there’s no downside case — a study that can’t describe the conditions under which the project fails wasn’t really a study.
The independence question
Ask who profits from the study’s conclusion. A study produced by someone who only gets paid if you build has a structural incentive problem. LazrTek’s answer to that is skin in the game: we underwrite feasibility studies to the same standard we use when we invest our own equipment as equity in a project — because sometimes we do. A study that can tell you no is the only kind worth paying for. When yours says yes, the numbers flow straight into the business plan and financing package without translation.
Go Deeper
