There are four basic methods of pricing for our services. Each of the four methods is detailed below. In general, our preferred method is pricing by lump sum or hourly and we generally try to discourage pricing as a percentage of the total project cost as it can lead to conflicts and misaligned incentives. 

​

Lump Sum Fee

In the lump sum pricing model, our team will meet with yours to review your goals and objectives and we will prepare a lump sum proposal to cover all phases of our involvement in the project. This is the most straightforward approach and avoids conflict by setting clear, simple terms. There are no last minute extra invoices and owners can feel comfortable contacting us at any time without the potential for incurring additional hourly fees.  

​

Hourly Fee

Some organizations prefer an hourly fee or retainer type pricing model where we work on an hourly basis at an agreed upon hourly rate or for an agreed number of hours per month. This method is also the default pricing approach for periodic consulting services. This method can work excellent in certain circumstances but can also unfortunately dissuade owners from reaching out when problems arise because they do not want to incur additional fees. In the event that an organization is planning to be in touch with us regularly (more than once or twice a month) we strongly encourage a lump sum proposal, but of course we are willing to work with you and do everything we can to make our billing structure fair and transparent. 

​

Per Square Foot Fee​

Pricing by square foot is a method we seldom encourage but, as with the hourly pricing model, there are certain circumstances where our customers prefer it and it fits well with the particulars of a project. Pricing per square foot is common in other construction disciplines so some owners feel more comfortable with this method but it's not at the top of our list for preferred pricing approaches.

​

Percentage of Cost Fee​

Some companies choose to set their fee based on a percentage of the total cost of the project. We generally discourage this approach as it almost always leads to competing, misaligned incentives. In short, the service provider becomes incentivized to increase the overall cost of the project while the owner is looking to keep costs down. This fundamental misalignment, whether real or perceived, often becomes the root of conflict and dissatisfaction in projects that utilize this method.