A written checklist of commercial real estate website features helps you compare proposals by the work they include and the results you can actually inspect.
A feature name isn’t enough to establish that scope.
Two proposals can both mention property search while describing very different responsibilities, limits, and ongoing work.
I create CRE websites, and I recommend turning your requirements into observable tasks before comparing the final totals.
That gives you a way to discuss what is included, what depends on another service, and what still needs a decision.
This article focuses on the feature schedule inside a proposal, rather than a general checklist for hiring a designer.
You can use the approach for a new site or a defined phase of a larger project.
The examples are hypothetical acceptance criteria, so adapt them to the actual business and the written offer.
Each requirement should describe a visible outcome.
Start with what the reader or editor needs to accomplish.
A line that says team directory leaves too much open.
A requirement that says visitors can find a current team member by service and reach that person’s approved contact route is easier to discuss.
It names the user, the task, and the result.
I suggest writing one requirement per row in your comparison document.
Give each row a short identifier so both parties can refer to it without repeating a long paragraph.
Then add the page or feature involved, the expected behavior, and the evidence that would show it works.
Acceptance criteria should fit the actual feature.
For a listing inquiry, your evidence might be a delivered test message containing the correct property identifier.
For a service page, the evidence might be approved copy, a relevant contact route, and usable display on a phone.
These are different checks because the features do different jobs.
Avoid asking the designer to prove broad outcomes that a website feature alone can’t guarantee.
A working inquiry route doesn’t guarantee a particular number of leads or transactions.
It demonstrates that a visitor can submit the intended information and the team can receive it.
Keep that distinction clear in the checklist.
You can still explain the business reason for the feature without turning it into a performance guarantee.
If you need a starting point for a defined CRE website scope, request the Website Design Price List and bring your most important visitor tasks.
I can help discuss how those tasks translate into pages and features rather than a vague wish list.
A worked requirement makes the checklist easier to use.
Imagine a brokerage that wants property inquiries to reach the assigned listing contact.
I would separate that request into the public action, the included setup, and the proof needed at review.
The following example is a planning aid, not a statement about any package or service.
| Requirement | Acceptance evidence | Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| The visitor can request information from an individual property page. | A test submission identifies the selected property and the visitor’s reply details. | The proposal names who configures the inquiry route. |
| The inquiry reaches the contact approved for that property. | The designated recipient confirms receipt of the sample inquiry. | The brokerage supplies the approved recipient and checks delivery. |
| The team can change the contact when an assignment changes. | The agreed editor demonstrates the change or follows the documented support process. | The proposal identifies the editor or support provider responsible for updates. |
These rows expose a useful distinction between displaying a form and delivering a usable inquiry.
If one offer covers only the page layout, keep the delivery work unresolved until someone accepts it.
You can use the same method for service inquiries without demanding a property database your business does not need.
A feature schedule should show scope boundaries.
For each requirement, ask the proposal to state what is included and what isn’t.
A property-page feature might include a reusable layout without including the work of preparing every property record.
A resource library might include a listing page without including the creation of the documents it displays.
Those distinctions aren’t flaws when they are clear and fit the project.
They become problems when each party assumes the other is handling the missing work.
I recommend separate columns for design, setup, content entry, and ongoing updates when those duties could differ.
The same requirement may involve more than one person.
Quantities should describe the work being purchased.
If a proposal includes a set number of pages or records, identify what counts toward that number.
Does a team profile count as a page, a record using an existing layout, or a separate content task?
Does an additional property type need another design or only another field selection?
Ask the designer to explain the boundary in terms you can compare.
Don’t fill in an answer on the designer’s behalf simply because another proposal uses similar wording.
Also identify the content supplied by the brokerage.
Copy, photos, logos, verified specifications, and document permissions can all affect whether a feature is ready for implementation.
A clear feature schedule should show where those inputs belong.
If something is optional, label it optional and state what would trigger a separate discussion.
That makes a smaller proposal easier to assess without treating every excluded item as a surprise.
The point is to make each offer understandable before deciding whether it is the right fit.
Dependencies should sit beside the promise.
Some features depend on a separate service, account, permission, or data source.
A proposal should identify those dependencies beside the feature they affect.
I wouldn’t treat the word integration as a complete explanation.
Ask what system is involved, what information moves, in which direction it moves, and how the connection is supported.
A demonstration can help clarify behavior, but it doesn’t by itself establish that your project includes the same setup.
The written scope should match the specific connection being offered.
Unresolved dependencies need a decision status.
Use a status such as included, optional, excluded, or awaiting confirmation for each requirement.
Awaiting confirmation should identify who will answer the question and what evidence is needed.
For example, an external listing source may need permission before a connection can be confirmed.
That is different from a feature that is fully included with a demonstrated source and agreed access.
Record any separate charges as categories to confirm rather than inventing figures.
The proposal should distinguish one-time setup work from ongoing service obligations where applicable.
Ask how the public feature behaves if the external service becomes unavailable.
A useful answer should describe the visitor experience and the person responsible for addressing the issue.
I also recommend confirming whether staff can correct or supplement source data locally.
If that is allowed, ask what happens during the next update from the source.
A dependency becomes manageable when its role is visible.
It becomes risky when it is hidden behind a confident feature label that nobody has defined.
Content duties should include preparation and approval.
A website can have all its layouts ready while still waiting for the information that makes them useful.
Your checklist should say who writes, checks, enters, and approves each content type.
I suggest separating business facts from presentation decisions.
The brokerage needs to verify services, staff roles, property specifications, and permissions for client material.
The designer’s agreed work may include organizing and presenting those facts, but don’t assume it includes independent verification of every business claim.
Write the responsibilities into the project schedule.
A sample page can settle the content standard.
Before producing every record, prepare one representative service page, profile, or property page.
Have the people responsible review it for completeness and accuracy.
That sample can show whether your required fields are useful and whether the available content supports them.
It can also expose a need for a different layout before the same problem appears across the site.
For meaningful images, the W3C alternative text decision tree helps explain why descriptions depend on context and purpose.
Include responsibility for those descriptions in the content work rather than leaving every image field blank by default.
If a floor plan contains essential information, discuss how that information can also be made usable beyond the image itself.
For downloads, identify who confirms the document is approved for public use and replaces older versions.
A completed upload isn’t the same as an approved document.
I recommend recording the final content approver for each type of material.
That gives the designer a clear route for questions and reduces the chance of conflicting instructions from several people.
Quality checks should name tasks and devices.
A phrase such as mobile friendly needs a practical review method.
Google’s responsive web design guidance describes the foundation of layouts that adapt to different screens.
In the proposal checklist, name the core tasks you expect to review across the agreed device and browser coverage.
Those tasks might include opening navigation, reading property details, downloading a brochure, and submitting an inquiry.
Confirm the actual coverage with the designer instead of assuming every possible device is included.
Functional checks should follow the visitor’s path.
For a contact form, test required fields, understandable error messages, a successful submission, and delivery to the intended recipient.
The W3C form labeling guidance provides a useful reference for identifying controls clearly.
Your checklist can point to that principle without pretending a brief form test proves complete accessibility compliance.
For property search, test agreed sample records and combinations, including a result with no matches.
For team pages, test long names and job titles as well as the ordinary examples.
Describe failures in terms someone else can reproduce.
A note that a particular button cannot be reached on an agreed test device is more actionable than a general statement that the page feels wrong.
Also agree on who records review comments and how corrections are checked.
You don’t need to invent a complicated system for a small project.
You do need a shared place where an unresolved issue remains visible until the responsible people have reviewed it.
Comparisons should preserve unanswered questions.
When proposals arrive, compare their answers against the same requirement list.
Don’t award an included mark to a feature that hasn’t been defined well enough to evaluate.
Use an unanswered status and send the specific question back to the designer.
I recommend keeping the original wording of each offer available alongside your summary.
That helps prevent a short comparison label from erasing an important qualification.
Commercial real estate website features need comparable evidence.
A screenshot can show a layout, while a live demonstration can show a particular interaction.
A written scope establishes what work the proposal offers to perform.
Those are related forms of evidence, but they answer different questions.
Ask for the evidence that matches the uncertainty you need to resolve.
If the question is whether messages include the property identifier, inspect a delivered test message.
If the question is who enters the inventory, request a clear written assignment of that work.
You can compare proposals fairly even when their approaches differ.
The goal isn’t to force every designer into an identical technical method.
It is to understand whether each method covers your required outcomes and what it asks your team to do.
If you’re preparing content while the scope is being clarified, browse my Free Marketing Resources for relevant CRE marketing materials.
My Helpful Video Walkthroughs and Tools offer another way to explore website topics before your next design discussion.
Keep notes on what remains unknown instead of smoothing the comparison into a misleading yes-or-no grid.
An honest unanswered question is useful information for a purchasing decision.
The final checklist should support handover.
Before choosing the scope, read the checklist as if the site has launched and someone needs to make an ordinary change.
Can the team update a property status, replace a staff photo, or correct a service contact through the agreed process?
Name which changes staff can make and which changes go back to the designer.
Ask what guidance or training is included for those tasks.
I suggest using one ordinary change as a handover demonstration when editing is part of the project.
The demonstration should use the same permissions and workflow the editor will have afterward.
Changes after approval need a visible path.
A checklist should distinguish an unmet agreed requirement from a new request.
If a required contact route doesn’t work, the original acceptance criterion gives you a concrete point to discuss.
If you add a new property type or a new service after approving the scope, that may create additional work.
Ask how such changes are described, estimated, and approved before implementation.
Also confirm how unresolved items are handled at the proposed launch point.
Don’t let an optional enhancement quietly replace an essential unfinished task in the approval conversation.
If your requirements are ready for a concrete website discussion, request the Website Design Price List and share the checklist with your priorities marked.
I can help discuss a CRE website scope that makes the included work and responsibilities easier to understand.
The best comparison document is the one your team can still use after selecting the designer.
It should explain what was agreed, how to inspect it, and who owns the work that keeps the site useful.
That is a stronger foundation for a decision than a long feature list with a checkmark beside every line.
Proposal feature questions have practical answers.
How should commercial real estate website features be compared?
Compare each feature by its intended user task, included work, dependencies, acceptance evidence, and maintenance owner.
Use the same requirements across proposals so similar labels don’t hide different scopes.
Does a demonstration prove that a feature is included?
A demonstration shows particular behavior in the setup being demonstrated.
The written proposal still needs to confirm whether your project includes that behavior, the required services, and the associated responsibilities.
What should a feature acceptance criterion contain?
State the action, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it.
For an inquiry route, that might mean a delivered sample message containing the correct property and reply details.
Should unanswered requirements count as included?
Keep unanswered requirements visibly unresolved until the designer provides a clear response.
Record who needs to answer and what information will settle the question before approving the relevant scope.
Can the checklist be used after the website launches?
The checklist can support handover, ordinary updates, and discussion of whether a request changes the agreed scope.
Keep it with the approved proposal so the team can refer to the same requirements later.
