In this episode of Site Selectors Are People, Too, host Devin Hillsdon-Smith gets on his soapbox to address one of the most common—and fatal—pet peeves in the economic development industry: the dreaded "TBD" on a Request for Information (RFI) response.
When faced with a glaring site constraint or an unfunded utility upgrade, the instinct for many economic developers is to buy time with vague answers like "TBD," "will investigate," or a highly generous interpretation of "shovel ready." But Devin pulls back the curtain to reveal exactly how these answers are interpreted on the other side of the table. Spoiler alert: TBD doesn't hide your site's flaws; it hides your competence.
Devin breaks down why unquantified risks are the ultimate dealbreakers for site selectors and their corporate clients, and he introduces a simple, powerful framework to use instead.
What You'll Learn in This Episode:
The Danger of Ambiguity: Why a site with three priced and planned problems will always beat a site with zero disclosed problems.The "No, But..." Formula: The exact five-step sentence structure you must use to address site gaps (Unqualified No + Specific Action + Cost & Funding + Timeline + Proof Document).The Pre-RFI Readiness Checklist: The essential due diligence files (like Phase I ESAs and Geotech borings) you need in your portfolio before the RFI ever hits your inbox.Stop selling the illusion of a perfect site and start selling your credibility as a trusted development partner.
For each actively marketed site, this is what should be on the shelf before the RFI arrives:
[ ] Phase I ESA — completed, dated, shelf life known[ ] Wetland delineation + JD status[ ] Geotech borings or documented soils profile[ ] Boundary survey and current title work[ ] Site control documented: fee / option / LOI / none — stated plainly[ ] Zoning status and entitlement calendar, including hearing cadence[ ] Electric: available capacity at the point of delivery, in MW, in writing, signed[ ] Electric: upgrade path, cost, and queue position if applicable[ ] Gas: line size, pressure, available volume, in writing[ ] Water/sewer: capacity, distance to the property line, extension cost with a validity date[ ] Telecom: providers, fiber path, redundancy — actual, not aspirational[ ] Transportation: access improvements needed, cost, jurisdiction, and who approves[ ] Labor draw analysis for target occupations, with wage data[ ] Training partner MOU with named program capacity and cohort timing[ ] Incentive framework: what's statutory, what's discretionary, who approves, on what calendar[ ] A written "known gaps" memo for each site — the things you'd have to say "no" to, each one already carrying a cost and a timeline