Your Broker Found the Space. Who Is Leading the Project?

The broker may lead the real estate transaction. That doesn’t automatically make the broker responsible for determining whether the space works—or for delivering what happens after the lease is signed.

Originally published November 2014. Updated October 2026 to reflect current owner-side transaction and project leadership considerations.

A broker once asked me a very reasonable question.

If he referred me to his client before the lease was signed, what happened if I looked at the proposed space and concluded it wasn’t the right space?

He could lose the deal.

That was exactly the point.

My responsibility wasn’t to get the lease signed.

It was to determine whether the space could support what the client was trying to accomplish.

Those objectives aren’t necessarily in conflict.

But they aren’t the same job.

The Broker’s Job Is Critical

A good commercial real estate broker brings expertise that an owner needs.

The broker understands the market, available properties, transaction economics, landlord motivations and negotiating environment.

That role can be enormously valuable.

But selecting a property creates another set of questions.

Can the business actually fit?
What will it cost to make the space work?
Can the project be completed when the business needs it?
Does the building have the required infrastructure?
What is the landlord actually delivering?
What risks are hiding behind the assumptions being used to negotiate the deal?

Those aren’t reasons to diminish the broker’s role.

They’re reasons to bring the project perspective into the transaction early enough to matter.

The Project Starts Before the Lease Is Signed

A common mistake is to treat project management as something that begins after the real estate transaction is complete.

By then, some of the most consequential project decisions may already have been made.

The building has been selected.

The economics have been negotiated.

The tenant improvement allowance has been established.

Landlord and tenant responsibilities have been allocated.

Delivery dates may have been committed.

The work letter may already define how construction will be managed.

Now the project team is expected to deliver within those decisions.

I would rather have the project questions asked while the owner still has choices.

Someone Has to Challenge the Space

A prospective office can look very attractive during a tour.

The location works.

The views are good.

The rent is competitive.

The landlord is motivated.

Then the project team starts asking questions.

• Does the program actually fit efficiently?
• Can the HVAC support the intended occupancy?
• Is sufficient electrical capacity available?
• What is the condition of the existing systems?
• Will accessibility improvements be required?
• What landlord work is necessary?
• Are there long-lead infrastructure issues?
• Can permits, design and construction realistically fit the proposed schedule?
• What does the test fit tell us that the leasing plan didn’t?

Sometimes those questions confirm that the space is a good choice.

Sometimes they don’t.

Someone on the owner’s team needs to be able to say that before the lease is signed.

The Cheapest Deal May Not Produce the Cheapest Project

Real estate economics and project economics overlap, but they aren’t identical.

One landlord may offer a larger tenant improvement allowance.

Another building may require substantially less construction.

One space may have a lower rental rate but need major infrastructure upgrades.

Another may cost more per square foot but allow the business to occupy sooner.

A long free-rent period may look attractive until a construction delay consumes much of it.

A generous allowance may look compelling until the project team develops a realistic budget and discovers what the allowance doesn’t cover.

That’s why I don’t want the capital-project analysis performed after the real estate comparison is effectively over.

It belongs in the comparison.

Don’t Confuse Coordination With Accountability

The real estate industry has changed considerably since I first wrote about this subject in 2014.

Many major brokerage organizations now have substantial project-management capabilities. Some have highly experienced professionals delivering complex capital projects.

So the question isn’t whether the project manager works for a brokerage company, an owner’s representative firm, a design organization or somewhere else.

I would ask:

Who is the project leader representing?

What is that person’s scope?

When do they become involved?

Do they have access to the information needed to challenge assumptions?

Can they recommend against a space if the project analysis says it doesn’t work?

Who is accountable for integrating the transaction, design, budget, schedule and operational requirements?

The organizational chart matters less to me than the clarity of those answers.

Independence Doesn’t Mean Opposition

An owner’s representative shouldn’t enter a transaction looking for reasons to kill a deal.

That isn’t independence.

It’s just another bias.

The objective is to give the owner the information needed to make the decision.

If the proposed space works, say so.

If there are problems that can be addressed through the lease, identify them while there is still leverage to negotiate.

If the project requires additional money or time, put that information on the table.

And if the space fundamentally doesn’t support the business requirement, leadership needs to know that too.

The purpose of an independent project perspective isn’t to oppose the transaction. It’s to test it.

Not Every Deal Needs an Owner’s Representative

I said this in the original article, and I still believe it.

Not every real estate transaction requires a separate owner’s representative or project manager.

A small project with limited construction, straightforward building conditions and an experienced internal team may not justify one.

The question should be based on the project.

• How complicated is the build-out?
• How much capital is at risk?
• How aggressive is the schedule?
• How much internal expertise and capacity does the owner have?
• How significant are the building and infrastructure questions?
• How damaging would a bad assumption be after the lease is executed?

As those risks increase, the value of independent project leadership generally becomes easier to see.

The Owner Needs Both Perspectives

I wouldn’t choose a broker based on whether the broker recommends an owner’s representative.

And I wouldn’t assume that hiring an owner’s representative somehow reduces the importance of an excellent broker.

They solve different problems.

What would concern me is any advisor discouraging the owner from obtaining expertise the project warrants simply because that expertise might challenge the transaction.

The broker should be able to recommend the best real estate decision.

The project leader should be able to recommend the best project decision.

Sometimes those conclusions will align immediately.

Sometimes they won’t.

The owner needs to hear both before signing the lease.