The response window for an industrial RFI is documented. Ron Crum and Taylor Gravois, both site selection practitioners, laid out the standard in Area Development (Q4 2019): identify one to three suitable sites within 24 to 48 hours, assemble a full response in one to two weeks. By Q3 2026, Area Development reported that AI-driven pre-screening had moved elimination upstream, collapsing weeks of filtering into hours before a community is even contacted. The window was already compressed. It is shrinking further.
Speed matters, but authority is the binding constraint. An RFI response is assembled from answers controlled by parties who do not report to the ED director, do not share the ED director's timeline, and in most cases have never been asked what they will state in writing absent a named prospect. The director who picks up the phone after the RFI lands will learn quickly that access to an asset and authorization to state what that asset can deliver are two different things. The assembly has to happen before the RFI exists.
This piece maps each counterparty at summary level: what they control, what they can pre-authorize, what requires a specific project, and what the EDO should ask for now. Detailed process mechanics for each dimension belong to subsequent pieces and prior Playbook coverage, cited below. This is the inventory of who needs to be in the room before the clock starts.
Who should read this
Any ED director in a tier-3 metro marketing at least one industrial site with these baseline attributes:
- 30 or more contiguous developable acres
- Current industrial or commercial zoning, or a comp-plan designation that supports industrial use with a defined rezoning path
- Electric service at or near the property boundary with three-phase power available
- Documented site control through ownership, option, or a willing-owner agreement
A 12-acre parcel zoned residential with no utility adjacency is a different conversation. The counterparty map described here is premature for that site. If your site meets the baseline attributes above, every section below applies.
The counterparty set varies by what you actually have. No rail adjacency, skip the rail section. Municipal utility rather than an IOU, your utility pre-alignment path is structurally different. The principle holds regardless: every data field in the RFI response is controlled by someone, and the director's job is to know who controls it and what they have agreed to say.
What an RFI actually asks for, simultaneously
The California GO-Biz site selection form is worth studying because it is public, current, and comprehensive enough to represent what a serious industrial RFI requests across all dimensions at once. Electricity demand in kilowatts, service voltage, amperage, average kWh per month. Natural gas in therms per month, cubic feet per hour, PSI. Water GPD. Wastewater GPD, suspended solids in pounds per day, BOD in pounds per day. Acreage, building square footage by type, clear ceiling height, truck doors, facility-ready dates. Jobs by skill level and wage category. Rail carloads per week, highway distance, airport type and distance, deep-water port distance. Fiber and telecom capacity. Incentive programs and zone designations.
Count the independent parties who control those answers. The electricity fields require the utility. The wastewater fields require the POTW. Acreage and building fields require the landowner or developer. Workforce fields require the community college or workforce board. Zoning and permitting fields require the planning authority. Environmental fields require a compiled file from multiple agencies. Rail fields require the railroad. Incentive fields require the state. No single person in any city government can fill out that form alone.
Three counterparties are where tier-3 responses most commonly fail at screening: the electric utility, the POTW, and the rail operator. All three control technical data the EDO cannot generate independently. All three are frequently unresponsive to requests they have not been prepared for. If you can schedule four pre-alignment meetings this quarter, start with those three and the landowner.
The sections below cover the eight counterparties where pre-alignment work matters most. Telecom and gas utility are real counterparties but rarely the binding constraint at first cut. They are excluded here for scope.
1. Electric utility
What they control. Whether the site can receive the requested load at the requested voltage on the requested timeline. The EDO can relay requirements. The EDO cannot confirm deliverable capacity, interconnection cost, or energization date without the utility's sign-off.
What they can pre-authorize. A screening-level capacity statement for the site: available capacity at the nearest delivery point, voltage, and the load threshold below which service requires no system upgrades. No named prospect needed. The utility states what the system can deliver today.
What requires a project profile. Anything above the screening threshold triggers a load study, interconnection analysis, and cost allocation tied to the specific demand profile.
The pre-RFI ask. A written capacity statement for each marketed site identifying the serving substation, available capacity in MW or MVA, deliverable voltage, and the load level that triggers a system-impact study. Ask the utility to specify what can be stated in an RFI response and what requires an NDA or project-specific engagement.
Tier-3 failure risk: high. IOUs file capital plans with state PUCs, not on city project pages. The EDO cannot unilaterally publish substation capacity or energization dates. Municipal utilities can treat this information as a public recruitment tool. That asymmetry is structural. If your city is served by an IOU, the pre-alignment meeting with the utility's economic development liaison is foundational. Detailed mechanics were covered in "Utility Capacity Answers".
2. POTW / pretreatment authority
What they control. Whether the treatment system can accept the prospect's wastewater at the volume and pollutant loading the process generates. The GO-Biz form asks for wastewater GPD, suspended solids in pounds per day, BOD in pounds per day. The EDO cannot answer those from general knowledge of the sewer system.
What they can pre-authorize. Available hydraulic capacity at the collection point serving the site, current average daily flow versus permitted capacity, whether the system has a pretreatment program, and the pollutant parameters for which local limits exist.
What requires a project profile. Whether a specific discharge qualifies as a Significant Industrial User, whether categorical pretreatment standards apply, surcharge calculations, and any required pretreatment infrastructure at the facility.
The pre-RFI ask. A written statement from the POTW superintendent or pretreatment coordinator identifying: permitted plant capacity, current average daily flow, available hydraulic capacity at the site's collection point, local limits for key parameters (BOD, TSS, pH, metals, oil and grease), SIU threshold, and the review timeline for a new industrial discharge application. Ask what can be stated in an RFI response without triggering a formal permit review. Detailed mechanics were covered in "Wastewater Discharge Compatibility".
Tier-3 failure risk: high. Small POTWs often lack dedicated pretreatment staff. The superintendent may be willing to answer but may never have been asked to produce a written capacity statement formatted for a site-selection response. That unfamiliarity is why the conversation has to happen before the RFI arrives.
3. Landowner or developer
What they control. Site control, acreage, facility-ready dates, building specs if a spec building exists, lease or purchase terms, and the physical site attributes the RFI asks for in detail.
What they can pre-authorize. A site profile sheet with confirmed acreage, dimensions, topography, current grading status, existing structures, access points, asking price or lease rate range, and the owner's timeline for closing or lease execution. If a spec building exists: square footage by type, clear height, truck doors, column spacing, floor load capacity, occupancy date.
What requires a project profile. Build-to-suit specifications, tenant improvement scope, lease term negotiation, site modifications beyond current condition.
The pre-RFI ask. A signed site data sheet with every physical attribute the RFI will ask for, plus a statement of site control and the owner's authorization for the EDO to submit the site in response to RFIs. Confirm the owner or developer will be available for follow-up within 24 hours of an RFI submission. A landowner who says "about 80 acres" when the parcel is 73.4 acres creates a mismatch the site selector will catch. Every number must be specific and current.
Tier-3 failure risk: moderate. The risk is incompleteness, not unwillingness. Most landowners will cooperate. The EDO's job is to make sure the data sheet is complete and precise before the clock starts.
4. Community college or workforce board
What they control. Whether the workforce pipeline exists at the scale and certification level the prospect requires. The site selector's follow-up will ask for occupation-level labor availability, training program completions, and institutional capacity to scale.
What they can pre-authorize. Current program inventory with annual completions by CIP code, OEWS employment counts and wage percentiles for relevant occupations within the labor shed, existing apprenticeship structures, and a conditional commitment letter stating what the institution can deliver before a prospect is named.
What requires a project profile. Custom training program design, specific cohort timing, employer co-investment terms, certification requirements unique to the prospect's process.
The pre-RFI ask. A workforce capacity brief with three components: (1) current completions data by program, (2) a conditional commitment template the institution will sign before a prospect is named, and (3) the lead time from employer request to first program completers. The conditional language has to be specific: "If an employer requires an industrial maintenance technology cohort of 25, the institution can enroll the first cohort within 90 days of a signed training agreement, with first completers 12 months after enrollment, subject to minimum enrollment and employer participation in curriculum review." That level of specificity survives screening. "We are committed to meeting employer needs" does not. The proof standard was established in "Workforce Proof".
Tier-3 failure risk: moderate to high. The institution may need coaching on what a site selector actually evaluates. Program launch is not throughput. First completers are the evidence.
5. Planning and zoning authority
What they control. Whether the site's current zoning permits the prospect's use by right, by site-plan approval, by conditional or special-use permit, or only by rezoning. The approval pathway determines timeline, public-notice exposure, and appeal risk.
What they can pre-authorize. A parcel-specific land-use determination signed by the zoning administrator stating: current zoning classification, comp-plan designation, allowed industrial use categories, approval pathway, required hearing steps, fee schedule, and recent comparable timelines. State certified-site programs confirm this is bankable before a prospect exists. FAST NY requires local site-plan and subdivision approval as a Track A certification item. VBRSP requires industrial or commercial zoning at Tier 3. SiteOhio requires industrial use through zoning or covenants.
What requires a project profile. Conditional-use findings that depend on the specific operation, variance applications, any review triggered by process-specific impacts the zoning code conditions on the use.
The pre-RFI ask. A signed parcel-level zoning determination for each marketed site. The determination should state the approval pathway, the steps, the calendar, and the fees. If the site requires rezoning, state that plainly and estimate the timeline. A site selector can work with a 90-day rezoning timeline. A site selector cannot work with "we'd need to look into that." Permitting documentation was covered in "Documenting Permitting Speed".
Tier-3 failure risk: moderate. Planning directors in small jurisdictions are often cooperative but have never been asked to produce a standalone zoning determination formatted for an external audience.
6. Environmental readiness file
The environmental-readiness file is not controlled by a single external party. It is assembled by the EDO from multiple sources: the environmental consultant who conducted the Phase I ESA, the USACE district office that issued the jurisdictional determination, the State Historic Preservation Office, the state or federal agency that reviewed threatened and endangered species, and the county or municipal stormwater authority. The counterparty here is the EDO's own compiled file. That changes the dynamic from a single meeting to an internal assembly and maintenance task.
What the file must contain. Phase I ESA date and findings, Phase II if triggered, wetlands delineation with USACE jurisdictional determination, FEMA floodplain status, SHPO correspondence, T&E species review, stormwater management status. SiteOhio requires USACE, SHPO, and USFWS concurrence. VBRSP requires USACE-approved wetlands delineation within five years and Phase I ESA within five years.
What can be banked before a prospect exists. All of the above. These studies and agency consultations are site-specific, not project-specific.
What requires a project profile. Air permits, hazmat storage permits, NPDES discharge permits, NEPA review for projects with federal nexus, land-disturbance permits sized to the actual building footprint. VBRSP's Tier 5 still leaves land-disturbance permits to the prospective industry.
The pre-RFI ask. Compile the environmental-readiness file for each marketed site as a single transmittable package with study dates, findings, agency correspondence, and expiration dates. Flag which studies are current and which are approaching expiration. A Phase I ESA completed in 2019 needs refreshing. A wetlands delineation without USACE concurrence is incomplete.
Tier-3 failure risk: moderate. The studies may exist but may not be compiled, current, or formatted for external use. The work lives in a shelf of binders in the planning office instead of a transmittable file on the EDO's server.
7. Rail operator
What they control. Whether rail adjacency translates into rail service, at what frequency, on what timeline.
What they can pre-authorize. Confirmation that the spur or siding is active, the serving carrier, the interchange arrangement if a short-line connects to a Class I, general service parameters.
What requires a project profile. Switching agreements, rate quotes, spur construction or rehabilitation scope and cost, capacity commitments tied to specific volumes.
The pre-RFI ask. A written service confirmation from the serving railroad identifying active/inactive status, serving carrier, interchange carrier if applicable, current switching schedule, and the railroad's economic development contact for project-specific inquiries. If the spur requires rehabilitation, get a preliminary cost estimate and timeline. If your site has no rail adjacency, do not claim rail access based on a railhead 15 miles away without confirming transload availability and cost.
Tier-3 failure risk: high. Class I railroads are notoriously slow to respond to inquiries from small markets. If your site's rail story depends on a Class I, start the conversation months before any RFI arrives.
8. State economic development agency
What they control. State-level incentive program eligibility, discretionary incentive authority, certified-site program status, and in some cases the RFI itself. South Dakota GOED's Lasso platform routes RFIs to local partners and defines third-party contributors who answer specific questions. Many states serve as the first point of contact for site selectors and filter which communities see the RFI at all.
What they can pre-authorize. Program eligibility confirmation for each marketed site: which incentive programs the site qualifies for, which zone designations apply (Opportunity Zone, FTZ, HUBZone, TIF district), what the state's standard incentive offer includes versus what requires discretionary approval.
What requires a project profile. Discretionary incentive packages, closing-fund commitments, custom training grants, performance-based agreements tied to job creation or capital investment thresholds.
The pre-RFI ask. A site-specific incentive eligibility summary from the state's business development team. Confirm which programs are formulaic and which are discretionary. Confirm the state's RFI distribution process so you know whether your sites are in the state's inventory and how they are categorized. The authority-level framework was covered in "Incentive Authority Matrix".
Tier-3 failure risk: moderate. The state agency is typically the counterparty most familiar with the RFI process. The risk is misalignment: the state's site inventory may not reflect infrastructure improvements completed since the last certification review.
Fifteen minutes and eight counterparties
Crum and Gravois reported that RFI binders may be reviewed for roughly 15 minutes. Sites can be eliminated within minutes of opening the spreadsheet. The elimination almost never happens because the city lacks assets. It happens because the assets lack documented, authorized, current answers.
The pre-alignment work described above is not a capital project. It is meetings with eight counterparties, conducted before any RFI exists, organized around one question: what are you willing to state in writing about this site, and what do you need from a prospect before you will say more?
Sort each counterparty's information into three categories: what can be stated publicly, what can be shared under NDA, and what requires a project-specific engagement. The EDO is not asking for a binding commitment. The EDO is asking for a pre-cleared factual statement that can be attached to a compressed-window RFI response without a phone call or a two-week delay.
The documented, authorized, current proof of the asset is the competitive advantage, not the asset itself. Every piece of that proof originates with a counterparty the EDO does not control.
- FERC's large-load orders: FERC's June 2026 action directed all six RTOs/ISOs to justify or reform rules governing how large energy users connect to the grid, covering cost-shift protection, interconnection study processes, and co-location agreements that will reshape the utility counterparty conversation for industrial sites.
- Alabama SEEDS Round 4: Alabama Commerce opened SEEDS Round 4 applications on July 8 with an August 31 deadline and roughly $11.7 million in site-assessment grants requiring site ownership or purchase option and at least 50 acres.
- Pre-screening moves upstream: Area Development's Q3 2026 coverage argues that AI has collapsed conventional pre-RFI filtering from weeks to hours, meaning communities may face elimination before they are even contacted and pre-authorized documentation becomes the only defense against invisible screening.
- Rhode Island's pre-permitted model: Rhode Island Ready's rules allow enrolled sites to receive a Pre-Permitted Certificate immediately after enrollment if they already meet development-feasibility standards, offering a compressed environmental and zoning pre-authorization path worth studying as a model.