Service
DPS turns food and beverage facility investment decisions into engineered financial models — grounded in real production data, validated utility costs, and phased expansion logic — so your capital delivers measurable returns, not expensive surprises. From single-line capacity upgrades to greenfield plant programs across all 50 U.S. states and Canada, our feasibility studies and capital planning services give executive teams the operational and financial clarity to commit with confidence.
Schedule A Consultation
DPS · Capital Planning & Feasibility
Construction Risk Factors
Food and beverage manufacturers rarely lose money on bad equipment. They lose money on bad decisions about when, where, and how much to invest — commitments made with incomplete production models, optimistic throughput assumptions, and capital budgets that ignore the true installed cost of utilities, regulatory compliance, and operational ramp-up. A feasibility study that relies on equipment vendor quotes and general contractor ballpark estimates instead of validated process engineering data will systematically understate total project cost by 15 to 30 percent. By the time the gap surfaces, the board has approved the budget, the lease is signed, and the operations team inherits a facility that cannot hit its ROI timeline without additional capital no one planned for.
Challenge 01
Equipment manufacturers scope what they sell, not what you need. Without an independent engineering-led feasibility analysis, capital plans accumulate specifications driven by supplier margin rather than your actual production requirements, batch volumes, and changeover frequency.
Challenge 02
Business cases built on nameplate equipment capacity rather than real-world throughput accounting for CIP cycle time, changeover labor, utility recovery periods, seasonal demand variation, and sanitation downtime. The gap between theoretical and actual output is where ROI models collapse.
Challenge 03
First-phase capital approved without engineered provisions for Phase 2 and Phase 3 utility capacity, structural loading, floor space, and dock access. Each subsequent expansion triggers redundant mechanical and electrical work that could have been avoided with a phased capital roadmap from the outset.
Challenge 04
FDA, USDA, SQF, and BRC requirements estimated as a budget line item rather than engineered into scope. Wastewater treatment, allergen zoning, air handling, drainage slope, and sanitary material specifications carry hard costs that surface during construction — not during planning — when they are three to five times more expensive to resolve.
The DPS Solution
DPS performs capital planning and feasibility studies as an engineering discipline, not a consulting exercise. Our process begins where most advisory engagements end: with your actual production data. We model your current-state operations — batch sizes, cycle times, labor deployment, utility consumption, CIP schedules, changeover protocols, and seasonal throughput patterns — to establish a validated baseline before any investment scenario is evaluated. This means your ROI analysis is anchored in how your facility actually performs, not in how a spreadsheet assumes it should.
From that operational baseline, our engineering team builds phased investment models that map every dollar of capital to a specific production outcome: additional throughput capacity, reduced per-unit operating cost, new product capability, or regulatory compliance positioning. Each scenario includes detailed utility load projections, equipment specifications, installation cost estimates derived from our own construction experience, and a realistic ramp-up timeline that accounts for commissioning, operator training, and initial production yield loss. Because DPS operates under a Design-Build-Manage model — with in-house process, mechanical, electrical, structural, plumbing, and controls engineering — our feasibility numbers are produced by the same team that will design and build the facility. There is no translation loss between the capital plan and execution.
This is also where DPS differs philosophically. Our pre-qualification process and business-first advisory role mean we will recommend operational improvements over capital projects when the data supports it. We have solved multi-million-dollar capacity problems with controls adjustments that cost nothing — and then earned the larger capital project when the client’s growth genuinely required it. The goal of every DPS feasibility study is to ensure that every dollar you spend on your food or beverage facility generates a return you can measure, defend to your board, and build upon.
Key Capabilities
Integrated engineering, operational, and project capabilities designed to support efficient, scalable, and reliable production environments.
Custom ladder logic, structured text, and function block programs developed on Allen-Bradley, Siemens, and other major platforms for process control, safety interlocks, and high-speed sequencing across food and beverage unit operations.
Full supervisory control and data acquisition architecture including server configuration, real-time process visualization, historical trending, and role-based access designed for multi-line F&B production environments.
ISA-88-aligned recipe structures that allow production teams to manage formulations, ingredient scaling, and batch sequencing directly from the HMI — reducing changeover time and eliminating manual transcription errors.
Automated clean-in-place and sterilize-in-place sequences with full parametric data logging for FDA and USDA compliance, integrated with process scheduling to minimize non-productive time between production runs.
Real-time monitoring and automated control of boiler, compressed air, glycol, refrigeration, and HVAC systems to reduce per-unit energy cost while maintaining critical environmental parameters in temperature-sensitive processing areas.
Integration of new automation layers into existing brownfield facilities — migrating legacy relay logic or outdated DCS platforms to modern PLC/SCADA infrastructure without extended production shutdowns.
The DPS Integrated Advantage
The table below outlines the standard phases, deliverables, and analytical parameters DPS addresses within a capital planning and feasibility engagement for food and beverage facility investment programs.
Scroll horizontally to compare every column on smaller screens.
| Study Phase | Deliverables | Analytical Parameters |
|---|---|---|
| Operational Baseline Assessment | Current-state production audit report, utility consumption profile, bottleneck identification summary, labor efficiency analysis | Actual OEE, throughput per shift, CIP cycle duration, changeover time, utility cost per unit of production |
| Market & Demand Alignment | Demand scenario matrix, SKU volume forecasting inputs, co-packing vs. owned-production analysis | Volume projections mapped to production capacity by line, shift pattern, and seasonal peak/trough cycles |
| Conceptual Scope Development | Preliminary facility layout options, major equipment list, utility system requirements, compliance scope summary | Equipment sizing against target throughput; FDA, USDA, SQF, BRC regulatory scope identification |
| Capital Cost Estimation | Total installed cost model with line-item breakdown: equipment, installation, utilities, controls, site work, compliance, soft costs | Cost data derived from DPS national project experience; contingency allocation by risk category |
| ROI & Financial Modeling | Investment scenario comparison, payback period analysis, NPV/IRR projections, sensitivity analysis on key variables | Labor cost, raw material cost, utility rates, throughput yield, and ramp-up timeline as variable inputs |
| Phased Expansion Planning | Multi-phase capital roadmap with infrastructure pre-investment specifications, trigger milestones, and budget allocations per phase | Utility headroom per phase, structural pre-loading, reserved floor space, permitting timeline per jurisdiction |
| Executive Decision Package | Board-ready summary report, risk register, recommendation with go/no-go criteria, preliminary project schedule | All assumptions, data sources, and engineering basis of estimate documented for stakeholder review |
Project Planning Guide
Capital planning connects a manufacturing opportunity to a defensible project scope. Buying additional equipment may be one option, but changing the product schedule, improving an existing constraint, or staging an expansion may solve a different part of the same problem. Feasibility work makes those choices visible before significant commitments are made.
Use the engineering solutions pillar to see how planning connects to design and execution, and the manufacturing scenarios pillar to compare the operating situations that shape each investment.
Start with the business question: which demand, quality, cost, or resilience requirement is the current operation unable to meet? Separate confirmed orders and existing performance from forecasts and assumptions. Define the time horizon, decision owner, and criteria used to compare alternatives.
A useful baseline includes production by product family, available operating hours, downtime reasons, changeover duration, labor coverage, yield, and utility consumption. Without this baseline, an apparently attractive equipment rate may not translate into saleable output.
Evaluate a small set of meaningfully different options rather than variations of the same equipment purchase. An existing-site capacity expansion may use infrastructure already available. A greenfield facility may offer a different layout and growth path, but introduces site, utility, construction, and startup dependencies.
For each option, document:
Identify information gaps that could change the decision. A utility survey or equipment condition assessment can be more valuable at this stage than a highly detailed rendering of an unconfirmed layout.
An equipment quotation is only one part of capital cost. Include installation, utilities, controls, building modifications, professional services, commissioning, training, temporary arrangements, and contingency appropriate to the definition of the scope. Distinguish allowances from priced commitments.
Operating models should consider labor, cleaning, maintenance, energy, consumables, waste, and inventory effects. Test sensitivity to demand, product mix, uptime, yield, and startup duration. Report the assumptions behind any payback or return calculation; a calculated result is not a guarantee.
Where investment is staged, define what each phase must deliver independently. Reserve space and connection points only where the future requirement is credible. Avoid describing a later phase as “easy” until its utility capacity, shutdown needs, and installation access have been reviewed.
Set review points for the design basis, funding authorization, procurement, execution readiness, and operational handover. Each gate needs an owner, evidence, and a way to handle changes. Owner’s representation can provide a framework for coordinating these interfaces and reporting decisions to the manufacturer.
The DPS delivery comparison provides context for the Design-Build-Manage model. Project-specific roles, deliverables, and commercial responsibilities still need to be agreed in the actual scope.
Bring a concise investment brief containing:
If the business case depends on uninterrupted output during construction, review the expansion shutdown strategy before adopting that assumption.
Project Verification Questions
Quick answers to the questions we hear most often from prospective clients evaluating automation partners.
DPS feasibility studies are produced by the same process, mechanical, electrical, and controls engineers who will design and build the facility. This means our cost estimates, utility projections, and timeline assumptions are derived from direct construction experience across food and beverage projects nationwide — not from industry benchmarks or vendor quotes assembled by analysts without installation-level knowledge. When DPS estimates a total installed cost, that number reflects what we have actually built, not what a database suggests it should cost.
Most DPS feasibility and capital planning engagements run four to eight weeks depending on scope complexity, number of investment scenarios evaluated, and whether an on-site operational baseline audit is included. Project budgets vary with facility scale, but DPS typically engages with food and beverage manufacturers on projects ranging from $400K targeted upgrades through $5M-plus full-facility programs. The feasibility study investment is a fraction of the capital at risk — and routinely pays for itself by eliminating a single scope gap that would otherwise surface during construction.
Yes — this is a core principle of our practice. DPS pre-qualifies every engagement and operates as a business-first advisor, not a contractor seeking construction revenue. If our analysis reveals that an operational adjustment, controls upgrade, or scheduling change can solve the capacity problem without a capital project, we will present that finding directly. We have resolved multi-million-dollar throughput constraints with PLC logic adjustments at no charge to the client, then earned the larger facility project when genuine growth demanded it.
DPS delivers capital planning and feasibility services across all 50 states and Canada. Our engineering analysis — production modeling, cost estimation, ROI projections, phased roadmapping — is performed by our in-house team from offices in Cary, NC and Lake Forest, CA. For engagements requiring on-site operational audits, our engineers travel to your facility regardless of location, and our vetted national contractor network provides region-specific installation cost data.
Regulatory and food safety compliance costs are engineered into every DPS feasibility study as defined scope items — not estimated as contingency line items. Our team identifies the specific FDA, USDA, SQF, BRC, HACCP, and FSMA requirements that apply to your product type and facility classification, then prices the associated infrastructure: sanitary construction materials, drainage systems, allergen zoning, air handling, wastewater treatment, and documentation. This prevents the 15-to-30-percent cost overruns that typically occur when compliance scope is discovered during construction rather than planned during feasibility.
Connect Planning With Production
Compare these decisions with the relevant industry requirements and published project examples. A case describes its own scope and outcome, not a performance commitment for a different facility.
Industry Requirements
DPS designs dairy beverage production lines for flavored milk, protein drinks, and yogurt, integrating thermal processing, blending, filling, CIP, and controls.
Review Deliverables for Dairy-Based BeveragesIndustry Requirements
DPS engineers co-packing facilities for multi-client production, linking flexible filling formats, batching, sanitation, traceability, utilities, and expansion.
Review Deliverables for Co-Packing & Contract ManufacturingPublished Case
DPS relocated Golden West Food Group’s co-packing plant from Los Angeles to Fort Worth in 10 weeks, with zero supply chain disruptions.
Review Project ContextConnect The Next Decision
Scenario
Connect site selection and facility development to the production model, utility requirements, growth phases, and the practical work needed before startup.
Key decision: Confirm that the site and infrastructure can support the production model before committing to the facility layout.
Planning Checklist for Greenfield Food & Beverage FacilitiesScenario
Increase usable capacity by connecting demand and process constraints to equipment, utilities, layout, construction phases, and the realities of live production.
Key decision: Identify the limiting system before deciding where to add capacity.
Planning Checklist for Expansion & Production Scale-UpSolution
Keep the manufacturer’s operational requirements visible across designers, suppliers, contractors, and startup teams through clear decisions and project controls.
Key decision: Assign who owns each interface and who can authorize scope, cost, and schedule changes.
Planning Checklist for Owner’s RepresentationFrom Planning To Execution
Share your product mix, capacity targets, current constraints, and project timeline. Start a conversation about the scope and decisions your project needs.
Discuss your engineering, equipment, or facility plans with the DPS team.
Contact Our Team