A 216-unit site is the same eleven scopes done over and over. Portfolio totals hide which building is bleeding — a per-unit number doesn’t. BLT tags every receipt, hour, and sub invoice to a building and a unit type, so Building C’s problem is named while there are still a hundred and thirty units to build.
Free on one project · full AI · no card
Illustrative site. Per-unit figures come from closed phases, never from an allocation.
“Rough-in” on a 216-unit site means nothing. Rough-in on B-2 bedroom, thirty-one units complete, means you can price the next building.
The lender funds by building and the investor asks by unit. Both answers come out of the same ledger without a reallocation spreadsheet.
Rolled up across a $27.7M site, $18,290 disappears inside the rounding. Held against Building A’s closed per-unit cost, it is a 14% gap with a named cause and 23 units of runway to fix it. Repetition is the whole advantage of multifamily — it only pays if somebody is comparing.
Most builders throw away the only asset a finished building produces: what each scope actually cost, per unit type, with the hours behind it.
A2 · 2 bedroom gets eleven scopes with their own phases, quantities, and crews. Every A2 in the building is built from the same template.
Receipts, hours, and sub invoices land on the unit and the type as they happen. Nobody codes anything twice.
A2 closes at $128,400 per unit with the hours, the material, and the sub billing separated. That is a fact, not an average.
B’s A2 units open with A’s closed numbers as Baseline. The estimate took an afternoon and it came from receipts.
Any scope drifting from A’s closed cost gets named at unit twelve, with the dollar and the cause, not at building close.
Free on one project, every feature, full AI. The first building you close is the one that prices the next three.