Advisory & Consulting
One question, examined properly, answered in writing.
An advisory engagement is not a seat at the table for the life of a project. It is a defined question — is this feasible, does this cost basis hold, is this the right structure, is this bid comparable, is this team organised to deliver — examined against the record and answered in a written recommendation that names its assumptions and states what it did not examine.
Figure — Engagement boundary
What sits inside the engagement, and what deliberately sits outside it.
Inside the engagement
- Feasibility review: whether the plan, the cost basis and the schedule hold together
- Site and plan review against approvals, utilities, access and known site conditions
- Cost and schedule basis review: tracing each number to the source it came from
- Capital structure review: what the sources and uses actually require of the project
- Procurement and bid comparability review, with the basis for a recommended award stated
Outside it
- Licensed design, engineering, surveying or environmental determinations
- Legal, tax, appraisal, insurance or accounting opinions
- Regulated inspections, certifications or code interpretation
- Guaranteed outcomes, approvals, financing or returns
- Securities, brokerage or investment-advisory activity of any kind
Who this serves
- Owners and sponsors deciding whether to proceed, pause or restructure
- Boards, committees and family offices who need a read that is not written by the party being reported on
- Lenders and capital partners wanting an independent view of a plan before they commit
- Operators and contractors weighing an unfamiliar project type, market or delivery structure
- Investors and landowners testing a proposal someone else prepared for them
Problems addressed
- A decision is due and the only analysis available was written by the party who benefits from it
- A cost or schedule basis nobody has traced back to a source
- A plan that has never been tested against the approvals, utilities and site conditions it assumes
- A capital structure built around one lender's term sheet rather than the project
- Bids or vendor proposals that cannot be compared because the scopes differ
- An internal team where nobody can say who decides what
- A recommendation delivered verbally, with no record of the assumptions behind it
Scope
- Feasibility review: whether the plan, the cost basis and the schedule hold together
- Site and plan review against approvals, utilities, access and known site conditions
- Cost and schedule basis review: tracing each number to the source it came from
- Capital structure review: what the sources and uses actually require of the project
- Procurement and bid comparability review, with the basis for a recommended award stated
- Organisational and process review: decision rights, cadence, reporting and who is accountable
- Second opinion for an owner, board, committee or lender on a plan prepared elsewhere
- Written recommendation with the assumptions, their sources, and the limits of the review named
Work products
- Executive recommendation memo
- Assumptions register with the source of each assumption named
- Feasibility review summary
- Cost and schedule basis review
- Capital structure and sources-and-uses review
- Bid or vendor comparability summary
- Decision-rights and reporting recommendation
- A stated list of what the review did not examine
Work product
Executive recommendation memo
Work product
Assumptions register with the source of each assumption named
Work product
Feasibility review summary
Work product
Cost and schedule basis review
Work product
Capital structure and sources-and-uses review
Work product
Bid or vendor comparability summary
Work product
Decision-rights and reporting recommendation
Work product
A stated list of what the review did not examine
Covers shown for illustration. Each document is written for one project and is not published; no figures, dates, signatures or project details are shown.
How a mandate starts
Step 1: First conversation to establish the real question and whether advisory is the right engagement
Step 2: Scoped proposal naming the question, the records required and what the review will not cover
Step 3: Written engagement, then the records are assembled and read
Step 4: Written recommendation delivered and walked through, with the assumptions and the limits stated
Records we request after an initial fit conversation
- The plan, proposal or term sheet the question is about
- Current cost basis and schedule, with whatever backup exists
- Contracts, consultant agreements and prior reporting relevant to the question
- Site, approval and utility information already in hand
- Who internally decides, and what they are deciding between
Nothing on this list is collected on the public site. It is requested directly, only once both sides agree the work is a fit.
The roles we are hired into
Each role below is a seat an owner or sponsor engages us to hold, with what that seat is accountable for. Authority exists only to the extent a written engagement grants it.
Advisory lead
Holds the question. Defines what is being examined, what is not, and what a useful answer would have to address before any work begins.
Accountable for
- A written scope stating the question, the records relied on and the limits of the review
- A recommendation the owner can act on, with the reasoning visible
- Assumptions named with their sources, so each one can be checked
- A plain statement of what the review did not examine
Feasibility reviewer
Tests whether a plan survives contact with its own assumptions: approvals, utilities, access, site conditions, cost basis and sequence.
Accountable for
- Each assumption traced to a document, a jurisdiction, a utility or a named source
- Gaps identified as gaps rather than filled with an estimate
- The consequence of each open item stated in cost, time or approval terms
- A clear read on whether the plan holds, does not hold, or cannot yet be judged
Cost and schedule reviewer
Reads the numbers back to where they came from — contracts, quotes, historical basis or allowance — and reports what is supported and what is not.
Accountable for
- Basis of each major line identified, or reported as unsupported
- Allowances, contingencies and escalation shown for what they are
- Schedule logic reviewed against the approvals and procurement it depends on
- Bid and vendor comparisons put on a comparable scope before they are compared
Capital structure reviewer
Examines what the proposed sources and uses actually require of the project, and where the structure and the plan disagree.
Accountable for
- Sources and uses tested against the cost basis and the schedule
- Covenant, draw and guarantee requirements read against what the project can meet
- Structural gaps stated plainly, with the decisions they force
- No offering, no solicitation, no allocation and no representation of any lender or investor
Organisational reviewer
Looks at how decisions get made: who decides, on what cadence, on what information, and where that breaks down.
Accountable for
- Decision rights and approval thresholds written down
- Reporting cadence and content recommended for the people who must decide
- Accountability gaps and overlaps identified by role, not by person
- A recommendation the owner's own team can adopt without us
Who holds this work
A fractional seat can sit in any of the three disciplines, so the partner engaged depends on the seat. Prior experience described on a partner's own profile is attributed to him and to the entity that employed or contracted him at the time — it is not a Threefold track record.
Capital, Strategy & Partnerships
Felipe Soares
Principal | Capital, Strategy & Partnerships
Felipe's discipline is capital, strategy and partnerships. His work focuses on the investment thesis, underwriting questions, capitalization, acquisitions, sponsor alignment and the relationships needed to move an opportunity toward a defensible decision.
His scope
- Capital structure and formation strategy
- Investor, lender and partner relationships
- Commercial terms and partnership structuring
He also holds
Construction & Execution
Robert K. Bishop
Principal | Construction & Execution
Robert's discipline is construction and execution. His work focuses on preconstruction, scope, estimating, procurement, owner representation, cost and schedule controls, completion and recovery.
His scope
- Preconstruction, budget and schedule control
- Field execution and change management
- Completion of stalled or troubled work
He also holds
The partner named here reads the enquiry for this service himself. Naming a partner is not a guarantee of his personal availability, and no engagement exists until it is agreed in writing.
What we require to take the role
- A written engagement stating the question, the scope and the limits of the review
- One named person with authority to define the question and receive the recommendation
- Access to the records the question depends on: plans, budget, schedule, contracts, term sheets, prior reporting
- Acceptance that the review reports what the records support, including an answer nobody wanted
- Agreement that we recommend and record while you decide and sign
- Written disclosure and role separation before the work starts wherever Threefold is or may become a principal in the same project
These are conditions of the engagement, agreed in writing before work begins. Where one of them is missing, establishing it is usually the first piece of work rather than a reason to decline.
Which capacity applies
These are different things with different obligations. Which one applies is stated in writing before work or money moves.
Advisory & Consulting — a defined question
A scoped review producing a written recommendation. It ends when the recommendation is delivered, and the decision stays with the owner.
Owner Representation — a standing seat
Continuous cadence, coordination, reporting and escalation across a project, on the owner's side of the table. A different engagement with a different scope.
Principal participation
Where Threefold is or may become a principal in the same project, that is disclosed in writing and the roles are separated before the work starts.
Not offered here
Licensed technical determinations, legal, tax, appraisal, insurance and accounting opinions, regulated inspections, and any securities or brokerage activity.
Outside the default scope
- Licensed design, engineering, surveying or environmental determinations
- Legal, tax, appraisal, insurance or accounting opinions
- Regulated inspections, certifications or code interpretation
- Guaranteed outcomes, approvals, financing or returns
- Securities, brokerage or investment-advisory activity of any kind
- Binding or signing on an owner's behalf
- Standing project management or day-to-day oversight — that is a different engagement
Which route fits you
I have one question I need answered
A feasibility read, a cost basis review, a second opinion on a plan. Start with a scoped advisory conversation.
I need someone in the seat for the whole project
Continuous owner-side cadence, coordination and reporting is owner representation rather than advisory.
My project has already broken
Where cost, schedule or funding has failed, the first work is establishing where the project actually stands.
I need a licensed or specialist opinion
Licensed technical determinations and work belonging to a separately contracted firm are routed rather than absorbed.
Related reading
Construction planning & cost controls
How owners should compare construction bids before choosing a contractor
A practical bid-levelling method for owners: the ten comparisons that matter, the exclusions that hide cost, and the questions that reveal whether a bidder understood the job.
9 min read
Project recovery & completion
First-look review of a stalled project
The evidence review, authority review, cost-to-complete work and schedule reality check that a stalled project needs before any recovery plan is written.
9 min read
Related resource
Scorecard
Development Feasibility Scorecard
A structured self-scoring sheet across control, land and approvals, utilities, cost basis, delivery and governance — designed to surface the weakest link rather than produce a flattering total.
Open and downloadGeneral working material, not advice on a specific project. The document downloads directly; an email copy is optional.
Related pages
Owner Representation
The standing owner-side seat: cadence, controls, reporting and escalation across a project.
Fractional Services
Senior development, construction or capital leadership inside your team for a defined term.
Private Capital & Lending
What a project must be able to show before capital conversations are worth having.
Questions we are asked
- How is this different from owner representation?
- Advisory answers a defined question and ends with a written recommendation. Owner representation holds the owner's seat continuously — cadence, coordination, reporting and escalation across the project.
- Will you tell us not to proceed?
- If that is what the records support, yes. A review that can only return one answer is not a review.
- Do you make licensed determinations?
- No. Design, engineering, surveying, environmental, legal, tax, appraisal, insurance and accounting determinations belong to licensed professionals, and we say so where a question needs one.
- Can you review a deal someone else prepared for us?
- Yes — that is a second opinion, and it reports what the documents support, which assumptions are unsupported, and what the review did not examine.
- Do you advise on investments or raise capital?
- No. A capital structure review examines what a structure requires of the project. It is not investment advice, an offering, a solicitation or representation of any lender or investor.
- What do we get at the end?
- A written recommendation with the assumptions and their sources named, the open items and their consequences, and a plain statement of the limits of the review.
- Can advisory turn into a longer engagement?
- Sometimes the recommendation is that a standing seat is needed. That would be a separate written engagement, decided by you after the recommendation is delivered.
An advisory engagement produces a recommendation, not a determination, an approval or a guarantee. Scope and limits exist only in a written engagement, nothing here is legal, tax, appraisal, insurance, accounting or investment advice, and no review replaces the licensed professionals a project requires.
This page is written from the approved strategy plan and remains review-pending until the final approved practice copy is issued.