Owner economics receive the greatest weight, while execution and contractual protections remain essential. This default model is designed for comparing boutique hotel management proposals and their associated operating plans.
All anchors in this table are proposed evaluation standards.
| Criterion | Weight | 1/5: materially weak | 3/5: acceptable | 5/5: strong and decision-ready |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Revenue-to-owner-cash reconciliation | 18 | Forecast stops at revenue or an undefined profit line; material costs omitted | Reconciled earnings and cash bridge; explicit adjustments and definitions | Monthly, source-linked bridge; independently challenged assumptions; clear attribution of cash improvements |
| 2. Demand and competitive-set credibility | 12 | Aspirational comparables and advertised rates drive the forecast | Relevant comp-set rationale, dated performance evidence and segment-based demand case | Micro-market, seasonal and channel evidence; supply risks and counterevidence addressed; premiums explicitly supported |
| 3. Total fees and economic alignment | 12 | Headline fee emphasized; charges or incentive definitions unclear | Complete fee schedule tested against a common case | Reproducible fee waterfall, downside economics, related-party transparency and negotiated controls |
| 4. Staffing and operating-model fit | 10 | Service promise and labor budget conflict; ancillary operations assumed profitable | Role-based staffing, loaded employment costs and departmental budgets | Deployable roster, workload-based productivity, credible leadership and contingency coverage |
| 5. Distribution and affiliation economics | 10 | Gross bookings treated as incremental value; acquisition costs neglected | Channel contribution model and realistic commercial responsibilities | Evidence-backed incremental demand case, displacement analysis and independent-versus-affiliated comparison |
| 6. Property condition and capital plan | 10 | Cosmetic budget substitutes for condition assessment; downtime omitted | Scoped works, timing, contingency and funding responsibility | Reconciled technical, brand and operating capital plan with dependencies, bids and funded downside |
| 7. Seasonality, debt and downside liquidity | 10 | Annual averages only; capital calls and refinancing assumed away | Monthly model, debt definitions and explicit downside funding | Combined stress cases, covenant headroom, cash-trough funding and actionable contingency triggers |
| 8. Owner control, remedies and exit | 8 | Vague performance protection; unknown termination or transition cost | Counsel-reviewed approvals, tests, cure rights and exit schedule | Contract mechanics modeled in realistic failure scenarios; workable control, transfer and handover rights |
| 9. Relevant team and mobilization | 5 | Portfolio logos replace named personnel and comparable references | Relevant references, identified leaders and sequenced transition plan | Owner-verified attribution, sufficient assigned capacity and tested opening or takeover contingencies |
| 10. Reporting, data and assurance | 5 | Dashboard screenshots without reconciliations or access rights | Agreed reporting pack, data permissions and compliance responsibilities | Tested reporting and exports, audit trail, security controls and independently reviewable calculations |
| Total | 100 |