Aerospace & Defense
Site Selection.

We narrow the country to the few markets that can actually staff and support an aerospace plant. That means occupation-level labor analysis for engineers, machinists, A&P mechanics, and composite technicians; mapping prime, supplier, and MRO ecosystems; screening sites for airport access, power, and facility security needs where the program requires them; and running a competitive incentive process across the finalists. The result is a defensible recommendation, not a list of available buildings.

The most aggressive competitors are usually states with an aerospace cluster to protect or one they are actively building. They back it with aerospace-specific tax credits, customized training run through community colleges, and infrastructure support for hangars, test facilities, and airport sites. The ranking shifts with each state's budget and strategy, so we benchmark current programs project by project instead of relying on last year's list.

We analyze supply at the occupation level, aerospace engineers, A&P mechanics, avionics technicians, machinists, including where those workers live, what they earn, and which employers compete for them. We also map veteran talent flows and proximity to separating military populations, which are often the deepest hiring pipelines for cleared and technical roles.

Cleared talent is heavily concentrated around existing defense installations and program hubs, and it doesn't relocate easily. If a program needs a cleared workforce, market screening starts from where that population already is, and factors in the local competition for it, rather than assuming clearances can be minted on schedule.

Beyond standard job creation credits and abatements, many states run aerospace-specific programs: targeted tax credits, customized workforce training pipelines, infrastructure grants for hangars and test facilities, and support tied to defense mission growth. States with active aerospace strategies compete aggressively, and packages calibrated to the industry meaningfully outperform generic ones.

Yes. Credible data on workforce availability, economic impact, and community capacity strengthens federal proposals and basing-related engagement, it shows the government a program can be staffed and sustained where you say it can. We build that analysis with the same rigor we apply to the site decision itself.

Yes. Suppliers face the same workforce scarcity with tighter margins, and their location decisions are often driven by proximity to a prime or a program. We help suppliers weigh ecosystem pull against labor cost and competition, and capture the incentives available to them independently.

More than convenience. Installations anchor cleared labor pools and shape which program offices and contract vehicles a site can realistically support. Distance from the relevant installation is one of the first filters we apply when screening markets for defense-program work.

Beyond finding cleared people, the building itself has to qualify: closed areas or SCIFs built to physical security standards, controlled access, and IT infrastructure segregated for ITAR-controlled data. Facility accreditation runs on its own clock, separate from construction or hiring, and we build it into the site selection schedule from the start rather than discovering it after a site is chosen.