-https://www.consulting.us/news/290/consulting-firms-recruite...
-https://technical.ly/philly/2017/09/13/site-selection-consul...
This is not to mention that cities likely had to hand over demographic data that would've otherwise been very expensive to collect: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-hq2-search-data-2018-....
Look at some of the cities that made the finalist list:
-Columbus (population ~880k)
-Denver (population ~700k)
-Indianapolis (population ~870k)
-Nashville (population ~667k)
-Newark (population ~285k)
For these cities, an additional 25k jobs would have been huge. Scott Galloway has advanced the theory that a large goal of the HQ2 search was to secure competing bids, which Amazon then took back to NYC and DC in an attempt to secure better terms. If these "finalist" cities were simply used as stalking horses with ~0% chances of actually winning, I can't help but feel it was a little wrong to induce them to spend the necessary fees on consultants and planners to put together a decent bid.
I do the same thing Amazon does all the time, to get the best price. I don’t need to be honest and tell the seller I’m using them to get someone else’s price down. Maybe I do go with the new seller if their price is good, maybe it’s not good enough to sway me from the other seller. It’s just business.
What was asked, and what I answered, was how to account for the time of municipalities that answered the RFP. Since they do not have to actually offer any of the proposed subsidies since they lost, then I think it's fair to assign no value to the cost. If you disagree, please feel free to tell me what price they paid instead of downvoting.