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.

• 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