How a Restaurant Development Mandate Is Priced in the UAE: Fixed Scope, a Percentage of Capital, or a Margin on Suppliers

Every restaurant owner who has commissioned outside help has met the same moment: three proposals on the table, three different totals, and no way to tell whether the cheapest one is the cheapest. The totals are not comparable because the fee models behind them are not the same thing. This piece sets out the three ways a restaurant development consultant is paid in the UAE, what each model does to the advice you receive, and the questions that expose which one you are actually buying. It is written from our side of the table, and it says where GGB stands.

The three models

A fixed fee for a defined scope. The consultant prices a scope of work — a feasibility study, a concept and menu development phase, a full development mandate from first decision to opening night — and the fee is the fee. The scope has to be written precisely for this to work, and the proposal has to say what happens when the project changes shape: a second outlet added, a site swapped, a licensing route that turns out to need a different structure. A fixed fee without a re-scope clause is a fee that will be argued about in month four.

A percentage of the capital. The fee is expressed as a share of the project’s investment — the fit-out, the kitchen, the pre-opening budget, sometimes the working capital. It is simple to state and simple to compare, and that is most of its appeal. It is also the model with the most obvious pull on the advice: every scope decision that raises the capital raises the fee.

A low headline fee, recovered elsewhere. The proposal reads as modest, and the consultant’s income arrives through the suppliers: a margin on the kitchen equipment package, a rebate from the fit-out contractor, a commission on the POS or the design studio. In the UAE this model is common enough that it is worth asking about directly, because the owner rarely sees it. What the owner sees is a consultant who is cheap and a project that is not.

Most real proposals mix these. A fixed study fee, then a percentage-based mandate, with a panel of “preferred” suppliers. There is nothing improper about a mixed model. The problem is that a mixed model is very hard to compare against another mixed model, and almost impossible to compare against a fixed one, unless every proposal states its basis in the same terms.

What each model does to the advice

The fee model is not a commercial detail. It is the incentive that sits behind every recommendation you receive for the next nine months.

Under a fixed scope, the consultant’s interest is in finishing the scope well and on time, because overruns come out of their margin. That aligns with the owner on schedule and on decisiveness. It can misalign on scope creep — a fixed-fee consultant may resist work that is genuinely needed but was not in the document — which is why the re-scope clause matters more than the fee itself.

Under a percentage of capital, the consultant is paid more for a larger project. That is not an accusation; it is arithmetic. When the kitchen specification is being decided, when the design brief is being set, when the question is whether the bar needs the second ice machine, the person advising you earns more from “yes” than from “no”. A good consultant will still say “no” when “no” is right. But the owner should know which way the fee is pulling, and should read every capital recommendation with that in mind.

Under a supplier margin, the pull is sharper and less visible. The consultant’s income depends on which supplier is appointed, so the comparison of quotations — the single most valuable piece of work in a fit-out — is being run by the party with a stake in its outcome. In our experience this is where owners lose the most money in a development, and where they are least able to see it, because the quotation that arrives has already been shaped before it reaches them.

Where GGB stands

GGB works as the development principal on a fixed fee for a fixed scope. The Feasibility & Investment Case is priced from AED 45,000 — indicative, scoped per project — and ends in a written go, revise or stop. The development mandate that follows is fixed in writing from the study’s own numbers, never as a percentage of the capital. Third-party costs — the contractor, the equipment, the licensed consultants, the opening stock — are paid by the owner’s company directly against documented comparisons, and GGB adds no margin to any supplier or contractor and states so in the proposal. Licensed consultants’ fees are itemised and approved by the owner before appointment.

We work this way because it is the only model under which the owner can read our advice at face value. When we say the second ice machine is not needed, nothing in our income says otherwise.

The five questions that expose the model

Put these to every consultancy in writing, and compare the written answers rather than the conversations.

1. What is the basis of the fee — fixed, a percentage, or mixed — and what scope does that basis cover? A proposal that answers with a number but not a basis has not answered.
2. What triggers a re-scope, and how is a re-scope priced? The honest answer names the events (a second site, a changed format, a licensing route that changes) and the method (a written variation, priced before the work starts).
3. Do we pay every supplier and contractor directly, against their own quotation? If the answer is “we handle that for you”, ask the fourth question twice.
4. Does the consultancy earn any margin, rebate or commission on any appointment made in the project? The answer you want is a written “no”. The answer to be wary of is a change of subject.
5. What is owed if the project stops at a decision gate? A feasibility study that says “stop” has done its job; the proposal should say what that costs and what, if anything, is credited if the project proceeds later.

None of these questions is hostile. A consultancy that works on a percentage or a panel will answer them plainly if the model is honest; the questions only embarrass a model that depended on not being asked.

Reading the totals after the questions

Once the bases are stated, the totals can be compared — but only after converting them to the same thing. A percentage fee needs a capital estimate to become a number, and the capital estimate is itself an output of the work you have not yet commissioned; ask the consultancy what capital figure they priced against. A supplier-margin model needs an estimate of the margin, which the consultancy will not give you; the working assumption in our experience is that the headline fee is a fraction of what the engagement will actually cost. A fixed fee is a number.

Then read the scope beside the number. A study that ends in a decision meeting is worth more than a study that ends in a binder. A mandate that names its decision gates and who holds the licensed roles is worth more than one that promises to “manage the project”. The cheapest proposal is the one that costs the least over the life of the project, and that is rarely the one with the smallest first page.

What to do next

If you are at the beginning, commission the study before the mandate, and read its fee basis as carefully as its scope; it is the sample of how the consultancy will behave for the next year. If you already have proposals on the table, send the five questions to each and give them a week. The written answers will do most of the choosing for you.