Sample Report
By David Jones, MAI, CCIM · Published 2026 · 10 min read
Most borrowers have never seen a feasibility study before their lender asks them to get one. They do not know what the document looks like, how long it is, what kind of analysis it contains, or how the conclusion is reached. This creates anxiety and, worse, makes it difficult to evaluate whether the study they receive is actually thorough.
This page walks through a redacted sample report based on the structure we use for SBA-compliant feasibility studies. The property details, financial figures, and location have been modified, but the structure, analytical approach, and exhibit formats are exactly what a completed deliverable looks like. If you want to understand what you are paying for before you engage a consultant, this is the closest thing to reading an actual report.
For a plain-language overview of what a feasibility study is and how the process works, see our beginner's guide.
The report begins with a professional cover page identifying the subject property (name, address, property type), the client (borrower name), the lender and SBA program, the analyst (name, credentials, firm), and the report date. This is not decorative. Lenders and SBA processing center analysts use the cover page to confirm the study was prepared for the correct transaction and by a qualified provider.
Immediately after the cover, a transmittal letter or reliance letter appears. This one-page letter is addressed to the lender and the SBA, states that the addressees may rely on the analysis for underwriting purposes, and is signed by the analyst. Without this letter, the study is legally a document prepared for the borrower's benefit only, and the lender has no standing to use it in their credit decision.
The executive summary condenses the entire 50 to 70 page report into 2 to 3 pages. In a sample report, it reads something like this (all figures illustrative):
Illustrative excerpt (redacted and modified):
Subject Property: Proposed 85-room select-service hotel, [City], [State]
Recommendation: Feasible. The proposed hotel is projected to achieve stabilized occupancy of 71.4% and an ADR of $139 by Year 3, producing a RevPAR of $99.25. At stabilized operations, the property is projected to generate net operating income of $1,280,000 and a debt service coverage ratio of 1.38x against total debt service of $928,000, exceeding the SBA minimum of 1.15x and the lender's stated threshold of 1.25x.
Key risk: A 130-room competitor is under construction 2.4 miles from the subject site with an expected opening in Q3 2027. Under the pessimistic scenario incorporating this supply addition with a 15% RevPAR compression, DSCR declines to 1.08x in Year 2 before recovering to 1.22x at stabilization.
Notice the specificity. The recommendation is not "this looks good." It is a quantified conclusion with specific metrics, a clear risk identification, and a scenario analysis that tells the lender exactly how much margin exists before the project is in trouble. This is what a quality executive summary looks like.
This section documents exactly what is being proposed. In a sample report, it includes the property address and legal description, the proposed use (85-room select-service hotel, franchise flag identified), total project cost broken down by land, construction, FF&E, soft costs, and working capital, the financing structure (SBA program, loan amount, equity injection, interest rate, amortization), and the borrower's identity and relevant experience.
The project description also includes limiting conditions and extraordinary assumptions. A typical limiting condition states: "This analysis assumes the project is built to the specifications described in the architectural drawings provided. Material changes to the project scope may invalidate the conclusions." These disclaimers protect the analyst and inform the lender about what the study does and does not cover.
The site assessment includes photographs taken during the site visit (typically 10 to 20 photos showing the subject property from multiple angles, the surrounding area, competing properties, road frontage, access points, and signage visibility). In a sample report, the analysis addresses:
Location quality (rated on visibility, access, proximity to demand generators), zoning confirmation (the specific zoning designation, confirmation that the use is permitted), flood zone status (FEMA panel referenced, zone designation stated), traffic counts (ADT from state DOT, cited by road and date), parking adequacy (space count vs required ratio), and utility availability. Each finding is documented with a source citation. The site assessment section in a typical report runs 3 to 5 pages including photographs.
The market analysis is the most data-intensive section, typically containing multiple exhibit tables. In a sample hotel feasibility study, you would see exhibits like these:
| Exhibit | Content | Typical Format |
|---|---|---|
| Exhibit 1: Trade Area Map | Color-coded map showing 3, 5, and 10-mile radius rings around the subject site with competitor locations plotted | Full-page map with legend |
| Exhibit 2: Demographic Summary | Population, households, median HHI, age distribution at each radius ring with 5-year growth projections | Data table with source citations (Census, ESRI) |
| Exhibit 3: Employment Base | Top 10 employers in the trade area with employee count and distance from subject | Ranked table |
| Exhibit 4: Demand Generator Inventory | Hotels' demand sources: corporate travelers, leisure/tourism, government, group/event | Segmented table with estimated room night contribution |
| Exhibit 5: Lodging Tax Revenue Trend | County or city lodging tax receipts over 5 years showing demand trajectory | Line chart with annual figures |
| Exhibit 6: STR Market Performance | 12-month trailing occupancy, ADR, and RevPAR for the defined competitive market | Trend table with monthly data |
The market analysis section in a hotel study runs 5 to 8 pages. Other property types use different exhibits (radius supply maps for self-storage, competitor pricing matrices for car washes, payor mix tables for medical offices), but the format and rigor are consistent.
Every competitor is profiled individually. In a sample hotel study, the competitive inventory exhibit looks like this:
| Property | Rooms | Year Built | Distance | Est. Occupancy | Est. ADR | Condition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hampton Inn [City] | 92 | 2015 | 1.2 mi | 74% | $142 | Good |
| Holiday Inn Express [City] | 88 | 2018 | 0.8 mi | 72% | $135 | Very Good |
| Fairfield Inn [City] | 78 | 2010 | 2.1 mi | 68% | $128 | Average |
| Best Western Plus [City] | 65 | 2006 | 1.7 mi | 63% | $118 | Fair |
| Independent Hotel [Name] | 42 | 1998 | 0.5 mi | 55% | $95 | Below Average |
| [Under Construction] | 130 | 2027 est. | 2.4 mi | N/A | N/A | New build |
Notice the last row: the under-construction competitor. This is the pipeline supply that many low-quality studies miss. Including it in the competitive inventory and modeling its impact on market occupancy and ADR is what separates a thorough study from a superficial one. Each competitor also has a narrative profile (1 to 2 paragraphs) describing its positioning, strengths, weaknesses, and observed condition from the site visit.
The financial projection section contains the multi-year pro forma. A sample hotel pro forma exhibit looks like this (all figures illustrative):
| Line Item | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 (Stabilized) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy | 62.0% | 68.5% | 71.4% |
| ADR | $132 | $136 | $139 |
| RevPAR | $81.84 | $93.16 | $99.25 |
| Room revenue | $2,540,000 | $2,891,000 | $3,080,000 |
| Other revenue | $178,000 | $202,000 | $216,000 |
| Total revenue | $2,718,000 | $3,093,000 | $3,296,000 |
| Total operating expenses | ($1,766,000) | ($1,891,000) | ($2,016,000) |
| Net operating income | $952,000 | $1,202,000 | $1,280,000 |
| Total debt service | ($928,000) | ($928,000) | ($928,000) |
| DSCR | 1.03x | 1.30x | 1.38x |
This exhibit tells the entire financial story in one table. Year 1 DSCR is 1.03x (below the 1.15x SBA minimum, which is expected during ramp-up). Year 2 reaches 1.30x. Stabilized Year 3 reaches 1.38x. The lender sees the trajectory: tight in Year 1, comfortable by Year 2, with margin by Year 3. The monthly Year 1 detail (not shown here but included in the full report) shows exactly which months are below breakeven and how the borrower covers those months with reserves.
The sensitivity analysis tests what happens when assumptions change. A sample sensitivity table:
| Scenario | Occupancy | ADR | NOI | DSCR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base case | 71.4% | $139 | $1,280,000 | 1.38x |
| Optimistic (+10% RevPAR) | 74.8% | $145 | $1,490,000 | 1.61x |
| Pessimistic (-15% RevPAR) | 65.2% | $129 | $980,000 | 1.06x |
| New competitor impact | 67.0% | $133 | $1,050,000 | 1.13x |
| Interest rate +200 bps | 71.4% | $139 | $1,280,000 | 1.18x |
| Breakeven occupancy | 58.3% | $139 | $928,000 | 1.00x |
The breakeven row is the most important line in this table. It tells the lender: "this hotel needs 58.3% occupancy to cover its debt." Since the comp set averages 66% and the base case projects 71.4%, there is a 13-point cushion. That is the margin of safety. If the credit committee understands nothing else about the study, they should understand the breakeven threshold and the cushion above it.
The conclusion restates the recommendation from the executive summary, supported by the key findings from each section. It is typically one page. In a sample report, it reads: "Based on the market analysis, competitive assessment, and financial projections presented in this study, the proposed 85-room select-service hotel at [location] is determined to be feasible. The project is projected to achieve a stabilized DSCR of 1.38x, exceeding the SBA minimum of 1.15x by a margin of 23 basis points. The primary risk factor is the 130-room competitive addition expected in Q3 2027, which is incorporated into the pessimistic scenario at a 1.06x DSCR."
The appendices contain supporting materials referenced throughout the report: detailed monthly pro forma tables, full demographic data tables at each radius ring, competitor location map (full page, color), site photographs (subject property and competitors), analyst qualifications and professional affiliations, engagement letter, and the signed reliance letter. The appendices typically add 10 to 15 pages to the report.
The sample above uses a hotel. Other property types follow the same structure but with different exhibits and metrics.
| Property Type | Key Exhibit Differences | Primary Metric |
|---|---|---|
| Self-storage | Radius supply map (1/3/5 mile), SF per capita table, lease-up curve chart | SF per capita, revenue per occupied SF |
| Gas station | Traffic count exhibit, fuel margin analysis, four-pillar revenue breakdown | Gallons per day, inside sales per SF |
| Restaurant | Trade area dining expenditure, competitive pricing matrix, franchise Item 19 comparison | Revenue per SF, average check |
| Multifamily | Rent comp grid (10+ properties), absorption chart, unit mix optimization table | Effective rent per unit, cap rate |
| Car wash | Wash count projection model, membership ramp chart, ICA benchmarking table | Wash count, blended RPC |
| Medical office | Provider supply ratio, payor mix analysis, patient volume model | Revenue per provider, collection rate |
The structure is the same. The data sources and exhibits change. A self-storage study has no STR data but has a radius supply map you will not find in a hotel study. A restaurant study has franchise Item 19 analysis that does not exist for a self-storage facility. The analytical framework adapts to the property type while maintaining the same rigor and the same logical progression from market evidence to financial projection to DSCR to conclusion.
Now that you have seen what a complete study looks like, here are the things that separate institutional-quality work from the reports that get sent back for revision or rejected outright.
Specificity over generality. A good study names every competitor by address. A bad one says "several competitors operate in the area." A good study cites traffic counts by road segment and date. A bad one says "the area has good traffic."
Independent projections. A good study builds revenue from market data and arrives at a number that may or may not match your business plan. A bad one starts with your business plan numbers and finds data to support them.
Pipeline supply. A good study identifies what is being built, not just what exists. A bad one inventories existing competitors and stops.
Honest sensitivity analysis. A good study shows a pessimistic scenario where DSCR drops below 1.0x. A bad one shows a pessimistic scenario where DSCR is still 1.20x because the stress test was designed to avoid an uncomfortable number.
Breakeven identification. A good study tells you the exact occupancy, revenue, or volume level where the project breaks even on debt service. A bad one never answers that question.
For a complete quality evaluation framework, see our 15-point checklist for evaluating feasibility studies.
Every feasibility study we deliver follows the structure outlined above: comprehensive market analysis, independent financial projections, honest sensitivity testing, and a clear recommendation. Request a scope of work and fixed-fee quote within 24 hours.
Request a QuoteWorking a live file? Our SBA feasibility study consultants guide sets out scope, timing and what lenders and CDCs expect, the engagement record shows completed studies by asset class, and the full article index lists everything published here.
Reference material: glossary of SBA and feasibility terms, feasibility study FAQ, document checklist, educational center, calculator suite and the full resources library.
We are an independent SBA feasibility study company. Our SBA feasibility study consultants prepare lender ready studies under SOP 50 10 8 standards. See feasibility study cost and pricing, then request a fixed fee quote. Every study is benchmarked against our flagship SBA Feasibility Risk Meter research on 1,036,077 SBA loans.
Also useful: completed engagement record, our methodology, original SBA loan research and the firm and analyst profile.