Before anyone commissions the full study, one question deserves a fast, inexpensive, independent answer: does this project deserve one?
A focused desktop review delivered in three to five business days. The firm pulls the trade-area evidence — demographics, traffic or demand drivers, and the competitive set — from the same published sources the full study would use; tests the sponsor’s pro forma against its RMA and IBISWorld benchmark corridors; and runs the preliminary coverage arithmetic against the proposed debt. The deliverable is a four-to-six page memorandum with one of three conclusions, stated plainly: proceed to full study, proceed with revisions (and which assumptions must change), or do not proceed (and why). If the project advances, the screen fee is credited in full against the feasibility study.
Find out whether the project survives independent arithmetic before spending real money on the full engagement — and learn which assumptions need work while changes are still cheap.
A fast independent read on whether a prospective credit warrants the borrower’s investment in a full study — deal triage at a fraction of full-study cost.
Qualify projects before they enter your pipeline. A screen that says do not proceed costs your client little; a dead deal at underwriting costs everyone months.
Projects already in underwriting with a lender requiring the full study should go straight to it — the screen exists for the decision before that decision.
A single fixed fee, quoted the same business day, a fraction of the full study cost — and credited entirely toward the full feasibility study if the project proceeds. The conclusion is independent: the screen exists to kill weak projects early as much as to confirm strong ones, and it does both.