Comparing agent fees and service scope for a Denver mixed-use sale

[ari_cedar]

One Denver agent has offered a low fee with a fairly bare service, while another would charge more and bundle in photography, buyer checks, negotiation and support through closing. Neither option feels comfortable: the first could leave important work uncovered, and the second may include services I do not need for a mixed-use building expected to sell near $770,000.

How can I reduce both proposals to a fair comparison? I want to test the photography scope, recent comparable sales, response times, offer handling, conflict disclosure and help if a deal falls through. The hardest mistake to correct would be choosing on the strength of the presenter and then discovering that someone else handles the file. What measurable questions would establish the named contact, their backup and who is responsible at each stage?

 

[moss.balanced]

Turn every proposal into the same task table and make them fill in the blanks. Include the fee basis, extra charges, photography deliverables, buyer qualification, offer presentation, negotiation, contingency problems and closing coordination. At $770,000, also convert each fee into an estimated dollar amount.

Ask for the named day-to-day contact, backup contact and expected response window. For comparable sales, ask why each property is comparable to this mixed-use building rather than accepting a generic list.

 

[ari_cedar]

The task table is a good idea. Right now the proposals use broad phrases, so I may be comparing included work with work that is either an extra charge or left to me. I’ll ask each agent to identify the person handling inquiries, offers and post-contract issues—not just the person making the presentation.

What would you request as evidence of buyer qualification without expecting private buyer information?

 

[friendly_kite]

I wouldn’t assume the cheapest proposal is deficient. If you can competently cover some excluded tasks, paying for a larger package may add little. The problem is ambiguity, not necessarily the lower fee.

For qualification, ask them to describe their process: what they request before treating an offer as credible, who examines it, and how concerns are reported to you. Also ask whether commercial and residential aspects of the property change that process.

 

[OrlaIves]

Give all of them the same short scenario: “Two offers arrive late Friday, one higher but with more conditions. What happens next, who contacts me, and when?” Their answers should reveal the actual offer process and whether an assistant or lead agent runs it.

I’d also ask whether all offers are presented in a consistent written format and how any conflict involving another client or participant would be disclosed.

 

[rowan_birch]

Fall-through rate sounds measurable, but I’d treat it cautiously. A raw percentage can reflect difficult properties or buyers rather than poor service, and agents may calculate it differently. Ask for the period and denominator if they provide one, then ask what they do when financing, inspection or another condition threatens the deal. The recovery process is more useful than an unexplained number.

 

[nia_sage]

“Photography included” needs unpacking too. Ask which parts of the mixed-use building will be covered, who chooses the final images, whether editing is included, and whether floor plans or other visual materials cost extra. Then connect that to timing: how soon after signing can marketing be ready, and who approves it before publication?

 

[bea.fable]

I’d score the proposals rather than choose on fee alone: total estimated cost, named contact, response commitment, relevant comparable work, marketing scope, qualification process, offer handling, conflict disclosure and support through closing. Require written answers and attach any important promises to the agreement where appropriate.

The telling question may be: “Which listed tasks will you personally perform, which will someone else perform, and which remain my responsibility?” That should expose the handoffs the glossy proposal hides.