Describe your candidate locations and criteria. Makeform creates a structured site selection form for requirements, scores, evidence, concerns, and recommendations.
Route site evaluations to Google Sheets, Slack, and Zapier.
Sample prompts for the builder
Choose a scenario, adapt its criteria, or send the prompt to the Makeform builder.
Audience
Event planners comparing venues for a conference
Format
Venue visit scorecard with requirements and photos
Prompt size
232 chars
Example form structure
Venue visit scorecard with requirements and photos
Venue, contact, and available dates
Capacity and room configuration
Access, catering, internet, and audiovisual fit
Site photos and supporting documents
Recommendation and next action
Suggested routing tags
Shortlisted
Needs follow-up
Not suitable
Separate disqualifiers from tradeoffs so a high score cannot hide a failed requirement.
Step 1
Define
requirements, weights, and hard stops
Step 2
Visit
capture the same evidence at every site
Step 3
Compare
review scores, costs, risks, and gaps
Step 4
Decide
record the recommendation and next action
A defensible comparison
Give every reviewer the same questions and keep evidence, assumptions, and follow-up together.
Ask the same capacity, access, cost, readiness, and risk questions for every candidate.
Pair ratings with comments and sources so totals do not hide assumptions or missing answers.
Set a status, then assign every unanswered question to an owner and due date.
Adapted to the decision
Choose a relevant pattern, then replace its criteria with your requirements.
Capacity, dates, access, services, cost, and attendee experience.
Space, occupancy cost, commute, connectivity, fit-out, and availability.
Service reach, public access, program rooms, partners, and operations.
Access, utilities, surroundings, constraints, preparation, and dependencies.
Site evaluation workflow
Agree on criteria early so every visit produces comparable facts.
Describe the site, users, nonnegotiable requirements, preferences, and required evidence.
Edit questions, require must-haves, define rating scales, and add conditional follow-ups.
Give visitors one form for notes, photos, costs, sources, and questions.
Compare recommendations and evidence, then assign follow-up before the decision meeting.
Evaluation methods
The value is not a more elaborate score. It is a repeatable trail from requirement to observation, source, concern, and final recommendation.
Field guide
These six groups keep requirements, observations, uncertainty, and follow-up visible.
Candidate identity
Use a stable identifier so repeat visits do not create ambiguous records. Record who supplied the information and when.
Must-have requirements
Separate pass-or-fail requirements from preferences. Flag failed capacity, timing, access, use, or utility needs before scoring.
Scored criteria
Define each scale and require a rationale. Store criterion weights and raw scores separately from any calculated total.
Cost and readiness
Capture comparable costs and preparation work. Separate confirmed amounts from estimates, with dates, sources, and assumptions.
Evidence and uncertainty
Label whether each important answer was observed, supplied by a contact, estimated, or awaiting confirmation.
Recommendation and follow-up
Keep the recommendation distinct from the score. Explain the main tradeoff and assign every open item.
Related tools
Pair site screening with planning, inspection, inquiry, and facility forms that collect deeper evidence after a candidate advances.
Define attendance, schedule, space, production, catering, and guest needs before comparing venues.
Open toolCapture a more detailed condition review when a property moves beyond the initial shortlist.
Open toolCollect internal space and facility needs that can become selection criteria for the project.
Open toolStandardize early questions for owners, brokers, or managers before arranging a site visit.
Open toolGather the property and contact details needed to request a separate appraisal workflow.
Open toolRun a dedicated safety review by the appropriate team when a shortlisted site needs closer assessment.
Open toolFAQ
Practical answers for planners and organizations comparing candidate sites, venues, properties, or facilities.
A site selection form evaluates candidate locations against consistent requirements. It captures identity, capacity, access, cost, availability, conditions, risks, evidence, scores, and a recommendation in one record per evaluation.
Start with nonnegotiable requirements, then add space, capacity, access, transport, utilities, operating fit, availability, total cost, preparation, surroundings, and user experience. Define what low and high scores mean.
Set visible weights before evaluations and preserve each raw rating and explanation. Use totals to sort, then inspect hard-stop failures, missing evidence, risks, and assumptions before deciding.
Yes. Collect separate identified reviews or one shared team submission. Compare scoring differences before averaging them; a large gap may reveal unclear criteria or unresolved facts.
Yes. Add uploads for photos, plans, maps, proposals, or other evidence. Label what each file shows and pair it with an observation, source, and date.
Use a must-have section with pass, fail, or needs confirmation answers, plus evidence and explanation. Score tradeoffs only among viable candidates; strong amenities should not offset a failed essential requirement.
Yes. Makeform is unlimited free for generating, editing, publishing, and collecting responses. The paid tier removes the Makeform badge. Create versions for screening, visits, and final comparison.
No. It organizes observations, sources, questions, and recommendations but does not verify technical conditions. Flag items needing inspection, cost confirmation, planning research, accessibility review, or other specialist assessment.
Compare locations on the same basis.
