The final site-comparison note before a lease decision

What should a final site-comparison note contain?

A final site-comparison note should show the preferred option, the evidence supporting it, the alternatives considered, the comparable costs and every unresolved condition that could change the decision. Separate a recommendation to continue from authority to sign or spend. Name the decision owner and date the information.

For a Bangalore commercial lease, the useful final document is usually a short decision memo backed by an evidence pack. It should let a person who missed the site visits understand why one property is preferred and what still needs to happen. A total score or an attractive rent quote cannot carry that responsibility alone.

Use this guide to build the memo, including a hypothetical three-site comparison and a cash-outlay calculation. The examples are invented to demonstrate the method. They are not current rents, offered properties, investment returns or a recommendation to enter a particular lease.

1. Freeze the decision question and the comparison date

Start with the actual decision being requested. “Which site should we investigate next?” requires less settled evidence than “May we execute this agreement?” A memo should not use a detailed comparison to imply authority for a later commitment that has not been requested or approved.

State the proposed format, required offer, desired timing and budget constraints. Record the version of the brief. If the search changed from a seated concept to takeaway, the final comparison should assess all candidates against the revised format rather than mixing old and new assumptions.

Set an information cut-off date and reconfirm material facts before the decision. Quoted terms, availability, owner work proposals and access arrangements may change during a search. Preserve the date and source of each quotation instead of presenting an undated number as the current agreement.

2. Put hard requirements before preferences

List the conditions that would prevent the proposed operation from progressing. These come from the business brief and the relevant professional reviews, not from a generic property score. Examples may include an unworkable layout, a service arrangement that cannot support the format or an unresolved issue that prevents the intended commitment.

Use four simple statuses: supported by evidence, fails the stated requirement, pending evidence, or conditional on a specific action. Record the evidence reference next to the status. A condition is useful only when it names the action, owner and point at which completion will be checked.

Do not compensate for a failed hard requirement by awarding more points for visibility or a lower rent. Compare preferences after showing which options remain viable and under what conditions.

3. Standardise the facts before comparing the prices

Put area figures on an explained basis. Show the quoted area, the measured planning area and what each includes. Where bases differ, keep the distinction visible rather than dividing every rent by whichever figure makes the property look best.

The current RICS Code of Measuring Practice guidance calls for documenting the measurement basis. Use that reporting principle here without presenting it as a universal statutory definition for Bangalore leases.

Apply the same discipline to condition and services. “Existing fit-out” should lead to an inventory, condition review, ownership evidence and compatibility assessment. “Power available” should lead to the appropriate premises-specific check, using the official BESCOM route for relevant utility questions.

For local authority matters, establish the applicable jurisdiction through current official sources such as the Greater Bengaluru Authority website. The memo should say what the relevant reviewer established, which documents they reviewed and what they still need. A website link alone is not evidence that a specific unit is ready for the proposed use.

4. Separate recurring cost, one-time outlay and deposit cash

Create distinct lines for recurring occupancy costs, fit-out and other one-time spending, and deposit cash tied up. A deposit affects funding even when it may later be recoverable. Do not label it an ordinary monthly operating cost or assume its recovery is guaranteed.

Record exclusions prominently. Depending on the actual proposal, unresolved items could include taxes, transaction or professional fees, utility deposits, escalation, owner contributions, reinstatement obligations or specific works. Ask the relevant advisers how the applicable amounts and terms should be treated. An unknown amount is pending, not zero.

Compare an identical horizon and service scope. State the rent commencement assumption, any assumed changes during the period and the treatment of concessions. If one property has a proposed rent-free period, check what it covers and when it starts before reducing the modelled outlay.

5. Worked example: three fictional properties

Assume three hypothetical Bangalore properties are being compared for one defined compact-store format. The numbers below are invented, all amounts are in Indian rupees, and no market-rate or availability claim is intended.

This table is deliberately narrower than a full approval. “Specified review questions closed” does not claim that every possible technical, legal or commercial matter has been settled. The actual memo must identify the scope of each review.

Now compare a limited cash model. Assume twelve equal months of the stated recurring baseline, no escalation or concession within that period, and all listed one-time outlays paid within the same planning horizon. The model excludes taxes, financing, unpriced fees and other unresolved amounts, so it is not an all-in commitment figure.

The formula is: twelve months of the recurring baseline, plus deposit cash, fit-out and the listed pre-opening outlay. For Site B, that is ₹115,000 × 12 + ₹400,000 + ₹900,000 + ₹80,000 = ₹2,760,000.

Site C has the lowest monthly baseline in this example and the highest modelled cash outlay. It also has a material unresolved access issue. Site B has the highest monthly baseline but the lowest cash requirement under these assumptions. Those facts support a discussion; they do not establish future profitability or a complete lease recommendation.

6. Test the assumptions that could reverse the preference

A sensitivity test asks what happens if an uncertain input changes. Use plausible project-specific alternatives supported by quotations or technical advice when available. For an editorial example, label the variation as hypothetical rather than presenting it as a forecast.

Suppose Site B's fictional fit-out assumption increases by ₹500,000 after further review. Its modelled cash outlay becomes ₹3,260,000, which is ₹100,000 above Site A's baseline model. Site B's initial funding advantage over A has disappeared. The team should revisit the trade-off instead of preserving the original ranking.

Now suppose A's unresolved electrical question produces an additional one-time scope. Leave its amount pending until estimated. Do not invent a zero to keep the table tidy or assume the work is minor. The final recommendation can remain conditional while that information is obtained.

Test timing separately from cash. If a property needs further owner works, identify the dependency and effect on the opening forecast. Do not translate a delay into lost revenue unless the business provides a defensible model and assumptions. A hypothetical sales number can look precise while obscuring the uncertainty that matters.

7. Keep observed customer access separate from demand assumptions

Summarise the site observations that support the proposed format: approach direction, entrance visibility, actual route to the door, collection arrangement and the conditions of the visit. Date the observations and describe the time window. If the intended offer depends on another daypart, identify the missing visit.

Avoid converting a busy street, a nearby office cluster or a small observation sample into a sales forecast. The memo can explain why a feature matters to the business and what further evidence is needed. It should not claim a conversion rate or guaranteed footfall without an appropriate source and method.

For Bangalore comparisons, be specific about the micro-location. Two shops in the same locality can have different approaches, building rules and service arrangements. The locality name helps orient the reader; the site evidence explains the operational consequences.

8. Write the recommendation in decision-ready language

Use a short paragraph at the top of the memo, followed by the comparison. A useful fictional recommendation would read:

“Progress Site B to final agreement and readiness review for the defined compact-store format. It has the lowest modelled twelve-month cash outlay under the stated assumptions and fewer unresolved issues in the reviewed scope. Before any execution decision, complete the remaining agreement review, confirm excluded cost items and reconfirm the current owner commitments. Keep Site A as an alternative while its electrical question is resolved. Hold Site C pending access and service evidence.”

This paragraph says what is preferred, why, what it does not yet settle and what happens to the alternatives. Adapt the level of commitment to the actual decision being requested. Do not copy the recommendation without replacing every hypothetical fact and obtaining the relevant reviews.

9. Use this final decision-note template

Keep the front memo short enough to read in one sitting. Link the supporting evidence rather than hiding critical conditions in an appendix.

Before the meeting, ask a person who did not attend the visits to read the memo. Can they tell which facts are verified, which amounts are estimates and what prevents the next commitment? If not, improve the distinction rather than adding more property photos.

After the decision, preserve the memo and its evidence versions. Reopen it if a material term, physical condition, intended format or readiness assumption changes. The comparison is useful because it records the basis of the decision, not because its first conclusion must remain permanent.

Read Lokazen's Five scores is not a lease, brand expansion playbook and owner's property checklist for related preparation. Bring the completed note and unresolved questions to the next property discussion so the team can focus on the decision still to be made.