Real Estate Development Partnerships

Architects need to stop thinking like consultants—and start thinking like owners. I recently modeled a hypothetical 10-unit multifamily project where the architect contributed their design fee—about $250,000—as equity. Rather than taking a traditional payment, that investment translated into a 20% stake in the general partnership. The total development cost was $4.17 million. With 70% leverage, the equity requirement was $1.25 million. The developer brought 80% of the equity, the architect brought the remaining 20%—both as active partners with skin in the game. Here’s the outcome: over 30 years, the architect’s share generated more than $3 million in profit. That averages out to $102,083 per year, all from a one-time contribution of services. Same building. Same capital stack. But for the architect, the return wasn’t capped at a line item on the budget. By taking equity, they gained long-term cash flow, backend upside, and real strategic influence—not just a voice in the room, but ownership of the outcome. And the developer? They brought less cash to the table, reduced upfront soft costs, and gained a partner who was fully aligned with the project’s long-term success. With the architect holding equity, the design team becomes more proactive, more invested, and more accountable—because they’re sharing in the results. This model lowers first costs, aligns incentives across the team, and reframes the architect as a co-creator of value—not a vendor delivering a service. Fee-for-equity isn’t right for every project. But when it is, it’s a path toward long-term wealth, deeper design authorship, and better buildings—for everyone at the table. This is where architecture and development converge. And it’s already happening. If you’re interested in structuring something similar, happy to share what’s worked for us. TL;DR: Let's build cool stuff #architecture #realestatedevelopment #multifamily #designbuild #equity #capitalstack #cre #urbaninfill #architectdeveloper #ownershipmodel #proforma

Hiring a new Partner is a long-term investment that many Professional Services firms underestimate. It typically takes around 2 years for a Partner to fully embed into a new firm and around 3 years before they become profitable. This is a timeframe that smaller firms often overlook, leading to challenges in managing expectations and return on investment. One major factor contributing to this slow ramp-up is that many Partners face 2-year non-compete clauses, limiting their ability to bring immediate impact. However, the larger challenge lies in the overestimation of their ability to transfer client relationships. It’s not a matter of intent—most Partners genuinely believe they can bring their networks with them. But many underestimate the extent to which their relationships were facilitated by the engine of the larger firms they’ve left behind. In major firms, Partners are deeply embedded in client organisations. Take Due Diligence as an example: large-cap Private Equity funds often treat DD reports as plug-and-play, embedded into the workflows of their investment committee. These reports are critical but not unique—they are seen as reliable and convenient, but not worth the operational headache of switching providers. As a result, the loyalty often remains with the firm rather than the individual Partner. For smaller firms, this reality means that hiring a Partner is not just about acquiring a book of business—it requires patience, effective integration, and creating the right platform to enable long-term success. It also involves proactively identifying new opportunities with emerging clients who may not yet receive the same level of service as they would from larger firms, ensuring the firm can carve out its value proposition and grow alongside them.

Fixed-Price contracts aren't protecting you... They're setting you up for failure! Most procurement teams think Fixed-Price = safety. Budget certainty. Risk transferred to the supplier. But here's what actually happens: → Your scope isn't as clear as you think → Requirements shift → The supplier protects themselves with change orders → You end up paying more, damaging the relationship AND... You have to spend time reopening/renegotiating contracts... I've watched this play out dozens of times. The real question isn't "which contract type is safest?" It's "which contract type matches my situation?" Here's how to actually decide: → 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗿𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿: Fixed-Price works. You get budget certainty and transfer delivery risk to the supplier. → 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘇𝘇𝘆 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴: Time & Materials keeps you flexible. Add "Not-to-Exceed" caps to control costs. → 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻'𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁: Cost-Plus gives transparency for R&D and innovation work. But it requires active oversight. → 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀: Master Service Agreements let you negotiate once, reuse forever while using Statements of Work (SoW) for specific work. Essential for strategic suppliers. → 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀: Supply Agreements lock in pricing and guarantee supply. → 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘀: Framework Agreements let you compete each project while maintaining pre-qualified vendors. Picking the right contract type is about correctly defining the rules of the game before you play it... But the rules also need to be adapted to the game! Otherwise, you're going to be bickering about the rules instead of creating value for both your organizations... Most contract failures happen because teams pick contract type based on comfort, not project fit. The visual below shows you exactly how to choose based on your situation. Would you add/change anything? Let me know in the comments 👇 _________________________ 𝗣.𝗦. I help companies choose and implement ProcureTech solutions for a living. If you're going to implement a CLM and/or an "AI Agent" to negotiate contracts, you're going to need to define your business rules for when to use which contract type in your business... Is that something you already have...? Every Sunday, I send out a free newsletter which shows you what you need to get results with technology. It's read by 10,000+ Procurement professionals (and counting...) Subscribe here for free: https://lnkd.in/eCeAcP3h

Procurement: Treat suppliers as extensions of your enterprise, not transactions. Procurement Excellence | 23 NOV 2025 - In complex global markets, resilient supply chains demand partnerships built on shared destiny, not just contracts. Here are 9 Steps to Create Long-Term Supplier Partnerships: #1. Transparent Communication ↳ Co-develop comms protocols e.g. QBR ↳ Clearly share expectations, goals & challenges #2. Long-Term Contracts ↳ Replace short-term with multi year agreements. ↳ Share long-term roadmaps & cost-savings initiatives. #3. Shared Performance Metrics ↳ Jointly agree and track SMART KPIs. ↳ Define escalation paths & RCA templates #4. Early Supplier Involvement ↳ Involve and recognize vendor’s contributions. ↳ Include key suppliers in product development cycles. #5. Guarantee Timely Payments ↳ Automate payment & consider early payment discounts. ↳ Audit internal processes for bottlenecks. #6. Co-Create Innovation ↳ Create supplier ideation portals & protect IP collaboratively. ↳ Fund joint proof-of-concept projects. #7. Recognize & Reward Excellence ↳Formally acknowledge & reward outstanding suppliers. ↳Bronze (Operational Excellence), Silver (Innovation), Gold (Strategic Impact). #8. Uphold Fairness & Ethics ↳ Interactions & contractual terms are mutually beneficial. ↳ Ensure cost pressures don't force unethical labor. #9. Jointly Manage Risks ↳ Jointly identify risks & develop contingency plans. ↳ Map tier-2/3 suppliers collaboratively. In today's volatile market, Resilient supply chains are built on deep, strategic supplier partnerships. Achieving lasting, mutually beneficial supplier partnerships requires: ✅️ Deliberate strategy ✅️ Centered on trust ✅️ Shared objectives ✅️ Continuous collaboration ♻️ Repost if you find this helpful. ➕️ Follow Frederick for Procurement insights. #ProcurementExcellence #SupplierCollaboration

PropTech as a Pillar of National Transformation The global conversation around PropTech has traditionally focused on investment. Early tools helped people view more listings, access more data and participate in markets once limited to a few. But our direction under Vision 2030 is more ambitious. PropTech is no longer just a digital layer on top of real estate. It is becoming a foundational pillar of how the housing system itself operates, driving economic opportunity, homeownership and global competitiveness. Under Vision 2030, I see the  transformation span five national pillars: • Financing & Settlement - faster, safer flow of capital supporting families and developers • Smart Investment - deeper insight and transparency powered by real-time analytics • Delivery & Speed - reducing friction from approvals to handover • Citizen Experience - accessible, inclusive housing journeys enabled by digital platforms • Sustainability & Resilience - future-ready construction and asset management And there is a new force accelerating all five: The convergence of AI and real world asset tokenization. AI enhances decision making, planning and service delivery. Tokenization turns real estate into efficient financial infrastructure, increasing liquidity, enabling new ownership models and making investment flows more productive. Together, these technologies unlock economic outcomes that were not previously possible: • Homes delivered sooner • Capital deployed with greater confidence • Local markets strengthened by global participation via FDI • Citizens supported with better affordability and accessibility Saudi Arabia is not experimenting at the margins. We are shaping the future architecture of real estate, where innovation directly serves national priorities and citizens’ lives. As we move forward, one question guides our focus: Which PropTech pillars will create the greatest impact for families, not just investors? I look forward to the perspectives of leaders and innovators contributing to this vital transformation.

As a corporate SaaS lawyer, I want to dive into two common types of agreements that drive the tech world: Software as a Service (SaaS) Agreements and Professional Services Agreements (PSAs). Let's break them down: A) Software as a Service (SaaS) Agreements These govern cloud-based software accessible via the internet, revolutionizing how we interact with technology. Key features include: -User limits and prohibited actions: SaaS Agreements outline restrictions like sharing access or reverse engineering, protecting the vendor's IP. -Service Level Agreements (SLAs): These guarantee uptime, support availability, and response times, ensuring reliable service. -Data ownership and security: Critical provisions define data ownership, post-contract data handling, and breach protocols. In today's data-driven world, these can't be overlooked. -Subscription-based pricing: Typically monthly or yearly, allowing for flexibility. -Users should understand renewal processes and potential price changes. B) Professional Services Agreements (PSAs) Covering skilled services like consulting and data analysis, PSAs focus on project completion and deliverables. Notable aspects include: -Statement of Work (SOW): This detailed document outlines project scope, deliverables, timelines, and performance metrics. -Performance specifics: PSAs address service location, deliverable ownership, and acceptance criteria, preventing misunderstandings. -Flexible payment structures: Options range from prepayment and hourly rates to fixed-price or milestone-based payments, adapting to project needs. -Work product ownership: Clear terms on who owns what and when ownership transfers are crucial, especially for IP-intensive projects. Understanding these agreements is vital in our tech-driven landscape. As technology evolves, so do these agreements. They're not just legal documents – they're the foundation for innovation and collaboration in our digital age. B Clear, well-structured agreements prevent disputes and protect all parties' interests. They're the unsung heroes of the tech world, enabling the seamless service delivery we've come to expect in modern business. Remember, in the fast-paced tech industry, knowledge of these agreements isn't just useful – it's essential. #legaltech #innovation #law #business #learning

Stop treating your CRO like a vendor - and start treating them like a partner. CROs aren't just service providers you hire and forget. Instead, they are strategic partners who can make or break your study success. Instead of: "We hired them to execute our plan."   Think: "We partnered with them to achieve our shared goals." But - what does make a sponsor-CRO relationship successful? Trust: The basis for solving problems together. When a site is struggling with enrollment, the partners brainstorm solutions as a team rather than playing the blame game. Transparency: The best sponsors give their CROs full context and not just task lists. The better I know the sponsor's goals, the better I can manage (my/your) our study. The partners have a common goal. Flexibility: We need to acknowledge that protocols may change, timelines shift, and unexpected challenges arise. The better the risk assessment, the higher the accepted need for flexibility. Respect: We must not forget that success is collective. Partnering on the sponsor side means: Choosing CROs based on capability and cultural fit, not just the lowest bid.  Investing time in relationship building, not just contract negotiations. And providing regular feedback, not just when problems arise. And CROs? They should think like owners, not contractors. They bring solutions and consult in case of challenges. They communicate proactively, especially when things go wrong. Let us be honest: Most CRO professionals entered this industry for the same reason as pharma, biotech or medtech professionals: Namely to help bringing life-changing treatments to patients. What does partnership look like in your sponsor-CRO relationship? #ClinicalResearch #SponsorCRO #Partnership #ClinicalTrials #Collaboration 

𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐈’𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐝, 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫: 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬. Taking shortcuts can lead to wasted money and a world of headaches downstream. (𝘙𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶'𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘴𝘵-𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘙𝘍𝘗 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘴𝘩 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬𝘴?!) 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈'𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝: 💡 𝙁𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙨 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩: Be specific about your needs in RFx docs. If you’re unclear, suppliers will be, too. Before going to RFP, always have quantifiable evaluation criteria finalized and approved by the Spend Owner. 💡 𝙄𝙩’𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙚: The cheapest option often costs the most in the long run. Prioritize value over price. Suppliers who price things materially lower than benchmark norms usually cut corners somewhere to meet margins. 💡 𝘾𝙝𝙚𝙘𝙠 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙡𝙮: Source independent references via your network. Past performance tells the real story. Ask the right questions and listen closely to the answers.  💡 𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙖𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙙: Can the supplier grow and evolve with your business? Are they innovative and flexible? Does their company culture and ways of working align with yours?  💡 𝙆𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙠𝙨: Most suppliers come with some level of risk, the key is understanding and managing it. Conduct due diligence on short-listed suppliers. Outputs should inform the down-selection process, with material deficiency action items included in the contract. 💡 𝘾𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙨, 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙤𝙧𝙨: The best suppliers care about your long-term success and aligning with your goals.  Look at proposals holistically, thinking beyond the transaction and into value creation. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠: Looking back, I’ve been at firms in seasons where costs were prioritized over total value, often leading to short-term gains but long-term challenges. There were times I should’ve taken a firmer stance about material supplier risks identified and bias in the selection process.  As procurement peeps, we provide recommendations based on long-term value, risk management, and partnership potential. This includes having the courage to speak up with informed and actionable guidance when things don't pass muster. The goal is to ensure sourcing outcomes build a foundation for success, not just a quick win. 📢 𝙋.𝙎. 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 “𝙨𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙙 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙘𝙠𝙨” 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛?

Cameras are far from a new technology for the real estate industry, but computer vision technology could dramatically increase their value for owners and operators. Computer vision technology means computers can understand visual data from photos or videos. Security is an obvious se case, but this technology allows cameras to be used for much more than that... Property inspection is another use case we see at Fifth Wall. As computer vision technology continues to improve, it will be used for property inspection and predictive maintenance, reducing the cost of manual inspections -- especially amid increasingly strict building codes and regulations requiring more frequent and thorough inspections. If owners and operators can save money via less labor needed for inspections and more centralized/remote monitoring of property conditions, the technology will take off. Near-immediate ROI is the not-so-secret secret of real estate technology's success. Need to have, not nice to have. #realestate #proptech