The figures below are an illustrative example only, built to show how a percentage-based commission model scales with project size. They are not a quotation, and actual pricing depends on product categories, specification and project scope confirmed with FBM Sourcing directly.
A developer evaluating whether a sourcing agent’s commission model makes financial sense usually wants to see the actual math, not just the percentage. FBM Sourcing’s fee structure has two components: for products a client has already selected themselves, a 5–8% commission on the ex-factory value (8% on orders below USD 50,000, 5% above); for products FBM sources on the client’s behalf, a direct quoted price with the margin already built in rather than shown as a separate line. Below is a worked example showing how this applies across a hypothetical multi-phase apartment development.
Illustrative Scenario: A Hypothetical 200-Unit Apartment Development
Assume a hypothetical developer is procuring FF&E and building materials — kitchen cabinets, doors, windows, sanitaryware and flooring — for a 200-unit apartment building delivered in four phases of 50 units each. For this illustration, assume FBM sources the majority of product categories directly for the client (the more common arrangement on a project of this scale), with a smaller portion already specified and selected by the developer’s design team.
Working Through the Two Fee Components
For the portion the developer has already selected and specified themselves — in this illustration, assume roughly one fifth of the total ex-factory value falls into this category — the commission applies at 5%, since a portion of that size on a project of this scale sits above the threshold where the rate steps down from 8% to 5%. For the remaining four fifths that FBM sources directly on the developer’s behalf, no commission applies; the margin is built into the quoted price the developer sees, meaning the developer evaluates that portion purely on the all-in quoted price compared to alternative sourcing routes, not as a product cost plus a markup.
What This Means Per Phase and Per Unit
Spread across four phases of 50 units each in this illustrative scenario, the commission component works out to a small per-unit figure across the full 200-unit project — a small fraction of a typical unit’s total FF&E and finishes budget. The larger, directly-sourced portion of spend is evaluated on its all-in quoted price rather than a separate percentage, which is why developers on larger projects often find the directly-sourced category comparison (FBM’s quoted price versus quotes obtained independently) more informative than the commission percentage alone when assessing total value.
Want the real numbers for your project?
The example above is illustrative. Share your project’s actual unit count, phasing and product categories, and we will work through the real commission and quoted-price structure for your development.
Why the Threshold Structure Matters at Developer Scale
The 5% rate above USD 50,000 versus 8% below it means the effective commission rate on a large, self-specified order trends toward the lower end as order value increases past the threshold, since only the portion below USD 50,000 (if the order is structured or phased that way) sees the higher rate. On a multi-phase project where each phase’s self-specified spend independently exceeds the threshold, a developer is effectively at the 5% rate across the project’s self-specified categories — which is a meaningfully different economic picture than a smaller, single-phase buyer evaluating the same percentage structure against a much smaller order value.
How the Directly-Sourced Portion Should Actually Be Evaluated
Because the directly-sourced portion of spend is quoted as an all-in price rather than an itemized product cost plus commission, the correct way for a developer to evaluate its value is not “what percentage markup is hidden in this price,” but “how does this all-in price compare to what I could achieve sourcing the same specification independently, including my own time cost of vetting factories, managing quality control and coordinating logistics across multiple suppliers.” For a developer managing a multi-phase pipeline without dedicated in-house China sourcing staff, this comparison typically favors a consolidated procurement relationship once the value of reduced internal coordination time is factored in — though the specific answer depends on each developer’s existing sourcing capability and project scale.
How FBM Sourcing Structures Commission for Developer-Scale Projects
FBM Sourcing manages the entire China procurement package for overseas construction projects. All quotations, invoices and shipping documents are issued by FBM Sourcing — you deal with us, and we carry the responsibility. For products you have selected yourself, we charge a 5–8% commission (8% below USD 50,000, 5% above); for products we source for you, we quote a direct price. On a multi-phase development, this structure is applied consistently across every phase, so the economics scale predictably as your project grows.
If you would like a real worked example based on your project’s actual scope and phasing, send us your unit count, product categories and phase structure and we will build it out.
Related Reading
- China Procurement for Property Developers
- What does a China sourcing agent’s 5-8% fee actually cover?
- Package price vs. factory price plus commission, explained
- Developer vs. contractor: two procurement paths from China
For how the same programme is delivered rather than priced, see mixed-container consolidation for apartment projects and phased delivery aligned to your construction schedule.
