The purpose of a site selection study is to determine which location offers the strongest foundation for project success — strategically and financially. Depending on how much analytical support the client wishes to seek from MMCG, we can provide anything from a straightforward demographic and accessibility comparison to a fully comprehensive, multi-layered analysis. The study offers a structured framework to evaluate and benchmark candidate sites across market demand, economic viability, regulatory and technical conditions, and financial performance. The goal is to inform decision-making by identifying risks, constraints, and expected returns — ultimately guiding which location should be selected, reconsidered, or excluded. In practice, most site selection studies are organized into key components such as demographic and market analysis, competitive benchmarking, technical and regulatory feasibility, and comparative financial modeling.

The Executive Summary is a concise overview of the site selection study’s key findings and conclusions. At MMCG, we know time is valuable. That’s why our full site selection reports—often exceeding 200 pages of rigorous comparative analysis—are distilled into a succinct, six-page Executive Summary. This streamlined format enables decision-makers to quickly grasp the relative strengths, risks, and financial outcomes of each candidate site, without sacrificing substance.

The Executive Summary delivers a sharp, comprehensive snapshot of location viability: project purpose, shortlisted sites, comparative market demand, high-level cost and revenue benchmarks, and a clear recommendation on the most profitable and strategically sound location. Because stakeholders typically read this section first, we ensure it communicates the bottom line at a glance—enabling swift, confident decisions.

Economic Feasibility within a Site Selection Study provides a comprehensive comparative assessment of the physical, legal, and demographic characteristics of each candidate location. Key considerations include:

Site & Infrastructure – A detailed physical profile of each site, covering parcel size, shape, elevation, soil conditions, and buildable acreage—supported by recent high-resolution satellite and aerial imagery. This includes evaluation of constraints such as topography and environmental limitations, benchmarked across sites to highlight relative strengths.

Zoning & Entitlements – Parcel-level due diligence for each location, encompassing ownership, title status, zoning classifications, overlay districts, and entitlement pathways. We also identify hard-line restrictions such as flood zones, utility easements, powerline and pipeline corridors, and roadway setbacks that may affect development potential.

Infrastructure & Access – Comparative assessment of utility capacity (water, sewer, electricity, gas, and telecom) and transportation access at each site. Roadway analysis includes hierarchy, ingress/egress conditions, and turning-movement counts, enabling a direct comparison of accessibility and infrastructure readiness.

Target Demographics & Location Intelligence – Demographic screening across 1-, 3-, and 5-mile (or drive-time) bands for each location to verify alignment with the project’s target population. Factors include age distribution, income levels, employment sectors, and lifestyle segmentation. Location intelligence integrates anonymized mobile-device traffic data and neighborhood indicators such as crime rates, school quality, and adjacent land use—allowing each site to be ranked against demand drivers.

Local Economic Insight – City, county, and regional overviews for each candidate location, highlighting growth catalysts, public infrastructure investments, economic development initiatives, and incentive programs. This enables direct comparison of which community offers the most supportive environment for long-term success.

Market Feasibility within a Site Selection Study evaluates the current and projected demand for the project across multiple candidate locations, as well as the competitive dynamics within each market. This section determines which site is positioned to capture sufficient market interest at sustainable, profitable levels. Key components include:

Industry Overview & Sector Positioning A high-level dashboard offering a 360-degree view of the broader industry in which the project operates. This includes current industry size (by revenue, square footage, or other relevant KPIs), recent performance trends, saturation levels, and demand-supply imbalances. The analysis highlights structural growth drivers, emerging threats (e.g., technological disruption, regulatory shifts), and forecasts, creating context for comparing how each potential site fits within sector-wide dynamics.

Primary Market Area (PMA) Definition For each candidate site, we delineate the primary market area where the majority of future customers or tenants are expected to originate. MMCG leverages AI-driven mobile phone data and tracking applications to map customer origins, visitation patterns, and traffic flows—complemented by geodemographic techniques. This ensures precise, evidence-based PMAs that can be compared across sites.

Competitive Market Area (CMA) & Competitive Set We define the broader competitive market area influencing each candidate site, identifying existing and pipeline competitors whose positioning affects absorption, pricing, and demand. By comparing CMAs side by side, we determine how much capacity each market can sustain, at what pace, and which site offers the least competitive friction.

Demand Analysis Assessment of demand volume, velocity, and trajectory within the PMA of each site. For real estate projects (e.g., multifamily, industrial, retail), this includes absorption rates, vacancy trends, pre-leasing levels, and migration patterns. Both historical and forecast models are used to validate unmet demand and compare how effectively each location can capture it within the project’s timeline.

Competitive Landscape & Supply Pipeline In-depth comparative analysis of inventory across CMAs, including asset characteristics (size, age, quality), performance (occupancy, lease-up pace), and pricing. This quantifies existing and future competition at each site, clarifying differentiation strategies and pinpointing which location offers the most favorable competitive positioning.

Suitability Analysis Comparative evaluation of candidate sites against existing competitors, using demographic, economic, and behavioral indicators. Each location is benchmarked on population density, income, employment mix, educational attainment, age distribution, and lifestyle segments. Proximity to infrastructure, accessibility, visibility, and adjacency to demand generators (employers, institutions, retail clusters) are also assessed. The goal is to quantify each site’s relative advantages and disadvantages, ensuring selection of the location with the strongest strategic positioning.

Technical / Cost Feasibility within a Site Selection Study evaluates whether the proposed project can be physically delivered on each candidate site and whether the projected development costs are realistic, justifiable, and aligned with market benchmarks. This component answers two critical questions: Can the project be built at this location, and can it be built within a financially viable budget? Key elements include:

Technical Viability – A detailed assessment of physical, engineering, and operational requirements to confirm that each site can support the proposed development program. This includes validation of site capacity (e.g., allowable building footprint, height, parking, and circulation), as well as confirmation that the proposed design, construction methodology, and technologies are technically feasible given site-specific constraints. The analysis ensures that no material obstacles—such as soil conditions, topography, access limitations, or environmental issues—would impede implementation at one site versus another.

Cost Estimation & Benchmarking – Development of preliminary project cost estimates across candidate sites, covering all major categories including land acquisition, site preparation, construction, soft costs (design, permitting, legal), contingencies, and FF&E where applicable. Project costs are validated using independent third-party benchmarks (e.g., Marshall & Swift, RSMeans, Altus) and comparable recent development values—typically from active CMBS loans. The analysis highlights cost per square foot (or per unit) at each location relative to market norms, flagging variances that may warrant value engineering or scope adjustment.

Implementation Timeline & Delivery Feasibility – Evaluation of project schedules to determine whether proposed timelines are realistic at each candidate location, given scope, entitlement requirements, permitting processes, and anticipated construction duration. Risk factors such as seasonal weather impacts, labor availability, and supply chain volatility are incorporated. Timelines are assessed not only for feasibility but also for their impact on carrying costs, absorption timing, and investor returns—allowing direct comparison across sites.

Cost–Benefit Alignment & Value Justification – The technical and cost feasibility analysis is integrated with comparative financial modeling to validate that projected capital costs at each site are supported by anticipated economic value or revenue generation. This may involve DCF or NPV tests, comparing upfront investment to future income or exit value across locations. A positive return profile reinforces the investment case for a specific site, while high costs or weak returns may justify prioritizing alternative options.

Conclusion: The technical and cost feasibility component of a site selection study ensures clarity on where a project can be delivered most efficiently and profitably. By comparing physical viability, cost structures, and delivery risks across candidate sites, MMCG empowers clients to select the location that minimizes risk while maximizing long-term return potential.

Financial Feasibility within a Site Selection Study evaluates whether the proposed project will be financially sustainable and capable of delivering acceptable returns at each candidate location. This section translates market, technical, and cost assumptions into comparative financial projections—determining if the project can (i) meet debt obligations, (ii) provide sufficient investor returns, and (iii) remain resilient under varying economic conditions. Key components include:

Pro Forma Financial Projections – A comprehensive set of financial statements is prepared for each site, typically including a detailed 1-year monthly projection and a 10-year annual forecast. Each pro forma outlines projected revenues, operating expenses, net operating income, capital expenditures, and debt service. Assumptions are explicitly defined and grounded in market data—such as lease-up pace, stabilized occupancy, rental rates, operating cost inflation, and expense loadings. Particular attention is paid to the Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR), with thresholds of ≥1.20x to 1.30x commonly required for bankable SBA, USDA, or conventional financing. Comparative modeling highlights which sites achieve stronger, more sustainable cash flows.

Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) & Return Metrics – DCF models are run for each location to evaluate the present value of future cash flows net of capital costs, establishing overall project value. Key return indicators include Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR), calculated on both leveraged (with financing) and unleveraged (all-cash) bases. These metrics are tested across multiple holding periods (e.g., 3, 5, 10 years) to model exit scenarios. Locations where IRR exceeds investor thresholds and NPV is positive signal a more attractive, financeable option.

Debt Service & Cash Flow Viability – For financed projects, the analysis rigorously tests each site’s ability to service debt obligations. DSCR is calculated annually over the loan term to confirm that projected NOI can reliably cover principal and interest. Lender thresholds (typically ≥1.20x to 1.30x) are benchmarked against modeled outputs. Return on Equity (ROE) and cash-on-cash yields are also calculated, enabling a direct comparison of investor performance across sites.

Sensitivity / Stress Testing – Multi-scenario sensitivity analysis evaluates how changes in key inputs—such as occupancy, rents, OPEX, or construction cost—impact financial outcomes at each site. Best-case, base-case, and worst-case scenarios are tested and benchmarked against DSCR, IRR, NPV, and breakeven thresholds. Locations demonstrating stable performance across stress tests are identified as lower-risk, higher-resilience options for investors and lenders.

Break-Even Analysis – Occupancy and revenue break-even points are calculated for each site—showing the thresholds at which revenues cover operating expenses and debt service. For example, one site may reach cash-flow breakeven at 68% occupancy while another requires 75%. These comparative risk buffers help stakeholders understand which site provides stronger downside protection.

Conclusion: The financial feasibility component of a site selection study provides a rigorous, data-driven comparison of which locations are bankable and investable. It confirms that projected revenues at the preferred site can cover costs and debt obligations, generate competitive returns, and remain resilient under stress. This comparative analysis is critical for SBA, USDA, and conventional underwriting, enabling lenders, sponsors, and equity partners to select the location most capable of long-term financial success.