Executive Case Study · Dairy

UHT & Yoghurt Dairy Facility in Central Asia.

A 400,000 L/day UHT and cultured products facility procured under a hybrid delivery model, financed by an OECD ECA with strict FX and payment-risk architecture.

Anonymised, buyer-first case study — no supplier is named, ranked or endorsed. Editorial policy.
Sector
UHT milk + cultured dairy
Geography
Central Asia (buyer) · European process suppliers
Budget band
USD 55M CAPEX
Timeline
28 months FEED to full commercial production
Delivery model
Hybrid: process package EPC + BOP multi-contract
Financing
ECA-guaranteed loan (80%) + sponsor equity (20%)

Client profile & engagement record

Client
Privately held food & beverage group (family ownership, third generation), Central Asia
Scale at engagement
~1,450 employees, USD 180–210M annual revenue, four distribution depots
Existing assets
One legacy pasteurisation line at 60% of local demand, no aseptic capability
Client objective
Greenfield 400,000 L/day UHT and cultured dairy facility built to EU hygienic design standards
Consultant role
Independent process consultant retained by the sponsor; led requirement definition and chaired the technical evaluation
Global B2B Group role
Structured the RFQ, researched and approached process suppliers, normalised proposals. No supplier ranking, no commission from the buyer.

Decision makers involved

  • Group CEO — mandate and final award decision
  • CFO — ECA structuring, FX policy and covenant review
  • Operations Director — capacity, product mix and shift model
  • Head of Quality — hygienic design, HACCP and retailer audit requirements
  • Independent process consultant — technical evaluation chair

Engagement timeline

Requirement
Weeks 1–12 — FEED, interface freeze between EPC and BOP
RFQ issued
Week 13 — identical brief to three European process suppliers
Proposals
Weeks 17–21 — normalised comparison, weighted scoring
Award
Week 24 — EPC award; BOP tendered locally in parallel
Completion
Month 28 — full commercial production

Engagement record verified against the project file and confirmed by the sponsor's CFO before publication. Company name, site location and individual names are withheld under a confidentiality agreement; figures are rounded and published with the project owner's approval. Global B2B Group is supplier-neutral and does not manufacture, install, certify or lend.

Challenge

The sponsor operated a legacy pasteurisation line at 60% of local demand and lost significant share to imports during peak-season shortfalls. Currency depreciation over the prior 24 months had also made imported UHT uncompetitive with a domestic alternative — but only if the plant could be built to international quality standards. The board authorised a greenfield 400,000 L/day UHT and yoghurt facility.

Milk intake
400,000 L / day
SKUs at launch
18
UHT lines
2
Cultured lines
3

Strategy

A hybrid delivery model was chosen: the process island (UHT sterilisers, aseptic tanks, filling) was tendered as turnkey EPC to a single specialist, while balance of plant (civil, utilities, warehouse) was contracted as multi-contract under the sponsor's PMO. The rationale was: process technology is where wrap-value is highest, and BOP is where the sponsor had strong local execution.

  • Process island EPC for warranty and performance guarantee
  • BOP multi-contract for local cost advantage
  • Interface specification between EPC and BOP frozen at week 12
  • Hard-currency invoicing throughout to align with ECA loan

The hybrid rationale follows the framework in the Turnkey vs Multi-Contract guide.

Supplier selection

Three European process suppliers competed for the EPC scope. All three passed diligence; award went to the supplier that combined the strongest local service presence (essential for a 24-month warranty in a Tier 3 country) with the second-lowest price. Global B2B Group remained supplier-neutral throughout.

  • 3 EPC bidders after documentary shortlist
  • Weighted scoring: technical 35%, service 25%, price 25%, financial 10%, ESG 5%
  • Local service presence weighted deliberately for warranty enforceability
  • 10-year spares availability contractually guaranteed

Financing

The OECD ECA of the EPC supplier's country guaranteed 80% of eligible equipment and services. Given the country's Tier 3 classification, the ECA structured a Berne-Union political-risk element into the guarantee. Payment mechanics were built around a confirmed letter of credit and milestone-linked payments — no advance payment beyond a bank-guaranteed 15%.

Debt / Equity
80 / 20
Tenor
8.5 yrs
Advance payment
15% (bank-guaranteed)
DSCR (base)
1.58x

The payment architecture followed the Currency & Payment Risk framework. Structural context on the Export Credit Agencies pillar.

Execution

The Incoterm was FCA at supplier premises — the sponsor's freight team ran consolidated freight from Europe via a Black Sea port. FAT covered the aseptic filling line at contract throughput on water and product simulations. Site commissioning ran 6 weeks longer than plan due to imported-utility-transformer clearance issues; the ECA loan grace period accommodated the delay without covenant breach.

  • FCA Incoterm allowed sponsor to consolidate freight and cut ~9% on landed cost
  • FAT on aseptic filler closed 6 NCRs pre-shipment
  • Utility transformer clearance delayed hot commissioning by 6 weeks
  • ECA grace period absorbed the schedule slip

The Incoterm decision references the Incoterms in Practice guide.

Lessons learned

  • Hybrid delivery worked because the interface between EPC and BOP was specified BEFORE either award.
  • Weighting service presence equal to price protected the sponsor when the utility issue arose — the supplier had local hands on-site inside 48 hours.
  • FCA Incoterm with buyer-controlled freight saved meaningful landed cost on repeat consolidated shipments.
  • Bank-guaranteed advance payments were non-negotiable and enabled by early ECA engagement — worth the two extra months in structuring.
  • The ECA grace period turned out to be the most valuable financing feature — worth more than a marginal rate improvement would have been.

Executive takeaways

  • Hybrid EPC + BOP is powerful when the interface is drafted upstream and the sponsor has strong local execution capability.
  • Weight service and warranty enforceability in supplier scoring — not just price and technical fit.
  • Buyer-controlled freight under FCA typically beats supplier-arranged freight on repeat corridors.
  • Design payment mechanics to protect both sides — bank guarantees on advance payments are the norm, not the exception.

Related executive resources

Planning a similar project?

Global B2B Group can help you prepare a professional procurement strategy, identify qualified international suppliers, compare solutions objectively and explore suitable financing opportunities.

Home