Manufacturing Plant Site Selection

Plant location decisions are a network design problem. The goal is to minimize Total Landed Cost (TLC) over a 10-year horizon while meeting non-cost constraints (labor, regulation, risk). The methodology has four phases: strategic filtering, TLC modeling, weighted factor scoring, and site-specific due diligence.

---

Phase 1 — Strategic Filters

Eliminate regions before modeling. Key filters:

Distribution reach — Map customer and retailer DCs. For high-velocity FMCG (e.g., snack packs), a plant should put 70–80% of volume within a 500-mile (1-day truck) radius. This typically narrows candidates to 2–3 geographic zones.

Raw material proximity — Identify top 5 ingredients by weight and cost. Bulk inbound freight is frequently underestimated. Grain-heavy products favor the Central Plains; nut-heavy products favor California or the Southeast.

Labor market — Multi-shift food manufacturing requires a stable semi-skilled workforce. Avoid markets with <2% unemployment or high competition from distribution/e-commerce facilities. Data sources: EMSI/Lightcast, BLS OES by MSA.

---

Phase 2 — Total Landed Cost Model

Build a 5–10 year NPV model per candidate site. See also: ROI NPV Payback, Total Cost of Ownership.

Cost Layer	Key Inputs
Inbound freight	Ingredient origins × distance × mode
Outbound freight	Customer locations × volume × distance
Land + construction	Industrial land $/acre, build-out cost
Labor	Wage rates × headcount × shifts
Utilities	Electric, gas, water rates
Taxes	State corporate tax, property tax
Incentives	Credits, abatements, grants (can offset $2M–$15M over 10 yrs)

Rule of thumb: Outbound freight + labor typically represent 60–70% of variable site cost. Optimizing real estate cost at the expense of these two layers is the most common site selection error.

Incentive negotiation is done through state economic development agencies (EDAUSA.org directory). Most states maintain a discretionary fund for manufacturing job creation.

---

Phase 3 — Weighted Factor Scoring

Score each finalist on non-cost criteria (typically 0–5 scale):

• Workforce quality and training infrastructure (community colleges, JTPA programs)
• Unionization rate in the county
• Infrastructure reliability (power grid stability, flood zone, seismic risk)
• Regulatory environment (FDA district office proximity, state food safety inspection culture)
• On-site expansion land available
• Quality of life for executive retention

Weight factors by business priority. Overlay scores against TLC rankings. A 6-criterion matrix plus TLC usually produces a clear winner. If two sites are within 5% on TLC, non-cost factors decide.

---

Phase 4 — Site-Specific Due Diligence

Once narrowed to 1–2 sites:

Utility capacity confirmation — Obtain capacity letters from local utility providers. Water/wastewater capacity is often the binding constraint for food plants. Do not assume availability.

Zoning and permitting — Pre-application meeting with the municipality. Food manufacturing triggers: air permits (VOCs, particulates), wastewater discharge permits, FSMA/FDA registration.

Incentive negotiation — Engage state economic development agencies before selecting the final site. Incentives are negotiated, not published — competition between states creates leverage.

Labor market validation — Run a zip-code-level workforce availability study (not county averages). Validate that competing employers are not saturating the local labor pool.

---

US Regional Profiles (FMCG / Food Manufacturing)

Region	Strengths	Cautions
Chicagoland	Established food mfg ecosystem, Class I rail, logistics density	Higher labor costs, union presence
Dallas–Fort Worth	Central distribution reach, labor availability, no state income tax	Water scarcity risk in some corridors
Virginia/Carolinas	Mid-Atlantic customer reach, strong incentive programs	Port congestion for import ingredients
Central Plains (KC, Omaha)	Grain/ingredient proximity, low cost	Distance from East/West Coast customers adds outbound freight

---

Common Mistakes

1. Optimizing for real estate cost rather than TLC — a cheap building in the wrong location costs more in freight and labor within 3 years
2. Using county-level labor data instead of zip-code-level workforce studies
3. Skipping utility capacity confirmation — capacity letters must be obtained before committing to a site
4. Negotiating incentives after site selection — leverage disappears once the decision is made
5. Ignoring wastewater capacity for food/beverage manufacturing — often the longest-lead permitting constraint

---

Key Data Sources

• Labor: EMSI/Lightcast, BLS OES by MSA
• Real estate: CoStar, CBRE, JLL industrial reports
• Incentives: EDAUSA.org, state economic development agencies
• Food regulatory: FDA district office map, FSMA compliance guidance
• Site selection firms: Boyd Company, CBRE Site Consulting, Site Selection Group

---

See the /network-design skill for broader network analysis and TLC modeling.