The Practice
About Feasibility Study Company
An independent, third-party feasibility and market-study practice serving lenders and borrowers. This page sets out what the practice is, the standards its work is accountable to, and, just as plainly, what it will not do.
What this practice is.
Feasibility Study Company is an independent, third-party feasibility and market-study practice. It prepares lender-grade studies for SBA, USDA, EB-5, and conventional and agency-financed commercial real estate. It does not lend, broker, develop, or hold an interest in the transactions it studies, and it never prepares both the feasibility study and the credit memo on the same deal.
The practice exists to give a lender, an agency, or an investment committee a defensible basis for a decision: an analysis of whether a specific project will generate the demand and cash flow to succeed, and to service its debt, on the terms the reviewer will test. Our work is judged by the party relying on it, which is why the pages that follow describe the method, the standards, and the limits of what we deliver rather than a record of who we have worked with.
Independent feasibility and market studies.
The practice prepares feasibility studies and market studies across the federal and conventional programs that finance commercial real estate: SBA 7(a) and 504, USDA Rural Development (Business and Industry, Community Facilities, and REAP), EB-5, and conventional and agency debt. The work spans asset classes, from multifamily and hospitality to self-storage and special-purpose property.
Each engagement is produced by an in-house analyst desk of market and financial analysts who build every study to the applicable program standard and to a single, repeatable method. That consistency is deliberate: it lets a credit committee compare our analysis across deals, and it means every conclusion rests on the same feasibility study methodology rather than a one-off narrative. The deliverable is written for the reviewer, sourced to primary data, and structured around what an underwriter actually examines.
Independence, established by exclusion.
Independence here is structural, not a slogan. The practice holds no lending, brokerage, development, or ownership interest in the transactions it evaluates, and it never prepares both the feasibility study and the lender's credit memo on the same deal.
A feasibility study is only useful to a lender if it reflects the data rather than the sponsor's hopes. That requires the analyst to have nothing at stake in the outcome. Because the borrower is by definition an interested party, independence cannot be asserted; it has to be established by exclusion, and it is assessed by the party relying on the study. The practice therefore takes no position in the deal and reaches no conclusion it cannot support with evidence.
The clearest expression of that discipline is a rule we do not break: on any single transaction, the practice will prepare the independent feasibility study or assist a lender's credit analysis, but never both. Performing both roles on one deal would collapse the information barrier that makes the feasibility opinion worth relying on. Keeping them separate is how the analysis stays independent in fact, not just in name.
Our conclusions serve the party relying on the analysis: the lender, the agency, the adjudicator, the committee. The practice holds no ownership, development, brokerage, operating, or financing interest in the project evaluated. A determination is never revised under commercial pressure, and a study that cannot support its conclusion is not delivered with one.
What we do, and what we do not.
A clear scope is a form of accountability. Stating what the practice will not do is as important as stating what it will, because it tells a lender exactly what the deliverable is, and is not.
What the practice does
- Market and demand analysis, capture and penetration testing, and absorption forecasting
- Financial projections, operating-expense rationalization, and debt-service coverage and stress testing
- Feasibility studies and market studies built to SBA, USDA, EB-5, HUD, and conventional standards
- EB-5 economic impact analysis using transparent, program-compliant methods
What the practice does not do
- Phase I or Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
- Legal advice or investment and financial advice
- Civil, structural, or mechanical engineering
- Both the feasibility study and the credit memo on the same transaction
Where a project needs work outside this scope, an environmental assessment, an engineering report, a legal opinion, or an appraisal, the practice says so and stays in its lane. The study is stronger for it, because a document that claims to do everything invites the question of whether it does anything well.
The standards our work is built to.
Every engagement is built to the published standard that will review it. These are the authorities our analysis is measured against, by program.
-
SBA SOP 50 10 8
The operative Standard Operating Procedure for 7(a) and 504 lending, effective June 1, 2025, under which a feasibility study is expected for special-purpose properties and startup or ground-up projects.
-
USDA 7 CFR Part 5001
The OneRD Guaranteed Loan regulation, which defines a feasibility study as an evaluation of the economic, market, technical, financial, and management feasibility of a project, the five components every USDA study must address, with the requirement set in the Community Facilities and Business and Industry program sections.
-
NCHMA Model Content Standards
The national methodology framework for rental-housing market studies, updated to Version 3.1 in September 2025, governing LIHTC allocations, agency lending, and conventional underwriting, with field verification of comparables required.
-
HUD MAP Guide
The Multifamily Accelerated Processing Guide and its mandatory form set, including HUD-92273, HUD-92274, and HUD-92264, for FHA-insured multifamily transactions.
-
USPAP, 2024 Edition
The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice discipline, the ethics, competency, scope-of-work, and credible-results rules applied throughout the analysis.
-
USCIS EB-5 requirements
The USCIS Policy Manual requirement that EB-5 economic impact analysis rest on economically and statistically valid and transparent forecasting tools, under the Reform and Integrity Act of 2022.
How our analysis is sourced.
Every figure in a study traces to a named primary source. Demand and demographics come from the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics; economic impact from federal multiplier data; program parameters from the agencies themselves; and market reads from comparable-operator and recognized industry data, each attributed and dated.
A conclusion is only as good as the evidence a reviewer can follow back to its origin. The practice documents provenance so that any number in a study can be traced to its source, and it discloses where data providers diverge rather than selecting the most favorable figure. The same discipline governs the research we publish: the methodology framework and the asset and market monitors carry their sources in full, because a claim without a citation is an opinion, not an analysis.
Considering an engagement?
A methodology briefing walks through the analytical framework, the deliverable your program requires, and how the practice would approach your asset class and market.
Request a methodology briefing