Oversight, appointed by you
BOQ validation, tendering, bill certification against progress, programme tracking, quality auditing and reporting. A genuine control, and a real profession with real skill in it.
Buying interiors · Who watches the work
A PMC is a control you buy when you cannot see inside the contract.
There is a real argument that an interior fit-out needs a project management consultant sitting above the contractor. On some projects it is plainly correct, and this page says which. On others it adds a fee to solve a problem an open, itemised BOQ has already solved. The useful question is not which model is better — it is whether you can see inside your own contract, because everything follows from that.
What a PMC actually sells.
Worth stating plainly, because the category is often described in terms of what it prevents rather than what it does.
Reviewed by Pradeep Kumar Vasadi, Principal — on-site execution and delivery.
Not construction
A PMC does not build. On any project with one you are paying a contractor and a party watching the contractor — two fees, one building.
Its value is visibility
Almost everything a PMC gives you on a single-site fit-out reduces to knowing things you would otherwise not know: is this BOQ fair, does this bill match the site, is specification being quietly reduced.
So its value depends on your starting position
Which means the honest test is not whether oversight is good — it obviously is — but how much of that visibility your contract already gives you for free.
When we would tell you to appoint one.
These are not grudging concessions. On these projects a PMC is the right call and we would say so in the first meeting.
A multi-site rollout
Several sites, often several contractors, running in parallel to one brand standard. Somebody has to hold consistency across them, and that is a job neither you nor any one contractor is positioned to do. This is the strongest case for a PMC and it is not close.
A project large enough that managing it is a full-time job
If overseeing the works would consume a person you do not have, buying that person is rational. The fee is the salary you are not paying.
When independence is the deliverable
Reporting to a board, a lender, a parent company or a landlord who requires third-party certification. Here the point is not the checking but the fact that someone unconnected did it. A contractor's own reporting, however open, cannot supply that.
When you are appointing multiple trades separately
Someone has to own coordination. If you have not appointed a main contractor to carry it, that role does not disappear — it moves to you or to a PMC. Paying a PMC is usually better than doing it yourself badly.
When it is a layer.
The case against is narrower than the case for, and it turns on a single point: whether the thing being protected against has already been removed.
| The risk | What a PMC does about it | What an open BOQ already does |
|---|---|---|
| The price is not fair | Validates and benchmarks the BOQ | Quantities, units and rates are itemised before you sign, so the total is arithmetic you can audit rather than a figure you accept |
| Billing runs ahead of progress | Certifies bills against site | Money follows named line items; you can walk the site and match them yourself |
| Specification is quietly reduced | Audits materials and workmanship | Grade stated per zone and hardware by brand and series — checkable against a document you hold |
| You cannot see what is happening | Reports progress to you | Written weekly reporting with dated photographs, published as a sample before you commission anything |
The fee is the part to weigh. A PMC is typically a percentage of works. On a large or multi-site programme that percentage buys a great deal. On a single-site fit-out it can be a meaningful fraction of the job, spent on checking documents that were designed to be checkable. That is not an argument against PMCs — it is an argument for knowing which of the two situations you are in before you pay.
A dashboard is visibility. It is not accountability.
These are marketed together and they are different products. Separating them is the single most useful thing you can do when evaluating any oversight offer, including ours.
Visibility shows you the state
Cost, programme, procurement, quality — live, on a screen. Genuinely useful, and better than a monthly email.
Accountability carries the consequence
Who is contractually responsible when that state is wrong, and what happens then. You can watch a project run late in real time on an excellent dashboard.
Three questions for any oversight product
What does it do when the number goes red? Who is contractually liable for the outcome? And is the reporting a live feed you can interrogate, or a screen you are shown at a meeting?
Ask for the evidence, both ways
A PMC selling oversight should be able to show a project they oversaw with a delivered duration, not just an area. That is the same standard they would apply to your contractor, and it is the right one.
Where we sit in this.
This page argues that on some projects a client-side PMC is unnecessary. We are a contractor. That is an argument in our own commercial favour and you should weigh it knowing so — the same disclosure we make on our studio versus contractor comparison, for the same reason.
The position we will defend: the visibility a PMC sells on a single-site fit-out should not be a premium product. It should be what a contract looks like. We publish an itemised BOQ you sign before site work starts, grade stated per zone, hardware named by brand and series, and a weekly written progress report we have published a real sample of. If a contractor will not give you those, a PMC is a reasonable way to buy them back — but you are then paying twice for something that should have come with the job.
And the corollary, which is not in our favour: on a multi-site rollout, on a project needing independent certification, or where you are appointing trades separately, appoint the PMC. We will work to their process and their formats without friction. An open BOQ is easier to audit, not harder.
Questions about PMC appointment.
What does a client-side PMC do?
Sells oversight appointed by you — BOQ validation, tendering, bill certification, programme tracking, quality audit, reporting. It does not build, so you are paying a contractor and a party watching the contractor.
When is a PMC clearly right?
Multi-site rollouts, projects large enough that management is a full-time job, situations where independent certification is the deliverable, and any project where you appoint multiple trades separately.
When does it add a layer?
On a single site where an itemised signed BOQ already gives you the visibility the PMC is selling — you can check quantities, rates, grade and progress yourself in an afternoon.
Is a dashboard accountability?
No. A dashboard shows you the state; accountability is who carries the consequence when the state is wrong. You can watch a project run late in real time.
Do you work with PMCs?
Routinely. We build to their process, submit against their formats and take their inspections. An open BOQ is easier to audit, not harder.
What should I ask before appointing one?
What will they check that you could not; what is the fee as a percentage and what does it buy in hours; what is their liability if they approve something wrong; and can they show a project they oversaw with a delivered duration.
Send the scope and tell us who else is involved.
If you have appointed a PMC, say so and we will price to their process and formats. If you are deciding whether to, tell us the project and we will give you our honest read — including saying yes, appoint one, when that is the right answer for what you are describing.