Value Engineering a Mid-Rise Under a Hard Cost Cap
A developer is building a 90-unit, 5-story wood-frame-over-podium multifamily project. The GMP contract was signed at $215/sq ft on 105,000 gross sq ft. Six months in, the contractor reports: lumber up 18%, steel up 12%, and a 9-week delay from a municipal permit re-review. The lender's construction loan has a 6.5% interest rate on drawn balances, and the developer's pro forma assumed a 22-month build and 5% contingency. The GC proposes three options: (1) switch two floors from wood to steel ($1.1M added cost, 4 weeks saved); (2) reduce unit finishes by $4,000/unit and cut the amenity package ($600k saved, slower lease-up); (3) hold schedule and absorb overruns from contingency.
1. Quantify the cost and carry impact of the delay and evaluate the contingency.
Read the worked answer
Estimate the carry cost of the 9-week delay. If average drawn balance during the delay is roughly 60% of a, say, $19M hard-cost loan (~$11.4M), interest at 6.5% for 9 weeks ≈ $11.4M × 6.5% × (9/52) ≈ $128k in interest alone, plus GC general conditions (often $8-15k/week) ≈ $72-135k, plus lost rent (90 units × ~$1,600/mo × ~2 months ≈ $288k of forgone revenue, though timing of lease-up matters).
Contingency: 5% of $215/sq ft × 105,000 sq ft = 5% of ~$22.6M ≈ $1.13M. Lumber +18% and steel +12% on the structural package could plausibly consume $800k-$1.2M - i.e., most or all of the contingency before any other overrun. So option 3 (absorb from contingency) is not safe: it leaves no buffer for the remaining ~16 months of construction. The contingency is effectively already spent.
2. Compare the three GC options on a risk-adjusted basis and recommend one.
Read the worked answer
Score each:
- Option 1 (wood→steel, +$1.1M, saves 4 weeks): saves
4/9 of the delay carry ($57k interest + ~$32k GC + some rent timing) - call it $100-150k of benefit against $1.1M cost. Financially poor unless it also de-risks a schedule-critical milestone (e.g., a lease-up or rate-lock deadline) worth far more. Reject on pure cost; consider only if a hard deadline exists. - Option 2 (finish/amenity cuts, -$600k, slower lease-up): frees $600k, which restores contingency. But slower lease-up and lower rents hit stabilized value - a $600k saving can cost far more in capitalized NOI if it delays stabilization or lowers achievable rent. Evaluate against the value of a month of lease-up delay (often $50-100k+ in a 90-unit building).
- Option 3 (hold, absorb): cheapest on paper but consumes the contingency and leaves the project exposed.
Recommendation: a hybrid - take targeted Option 2 cuts that do not impair lease-up (back-of-house, non-visible finishes), restore contingency to ~5%, and reject Option 1 unless a deadline justifies it. Do not simply absorb.
3. The lender requires the contingency be replenished before further draws. What should the developer do?
Read the worked answer
The lender is protecting its collateral; the developer must show a credible path to a funded contingency. Options:
- Value-engineer selectively (Option 2 partial) to free cash and re-fund the contingency account.
- Inject equity - the cleanest signal to the lender; even a modest additional equity contribution plus a written plan can unlock draws.
- Negotiate a change order with the GC to share overrun risk (e.g., GC absorbs a portion in exchange for schedule relief or a fee adjustment).
- Re-sequence to defer non-critical scope (amenity package) to a later phase, reducing near-term draws.
Do not proceed with draws against an unfunded contingency - that risks a loan default and a work stoppage. Present the lender a revised sources-and-uses with a replenished contingency and a realistic schedule reflecting the 9-week delay.