Back to StackSmart for Vendors & Suppliers
Sample document Illustrative only. The client, the incumbent, the incoming vendor and every system named are fictional. Not a live client brief and not for distribution as one.

Vendor Brief · StackSmart · Multifamily Consortium

Merrowfield Residential Group

You have been selected for AP Automation & Invoice Workflow. This brief carries what we already know about Merrowfield so your first call starts from their operating reality rather than from discovery.

Prepared for
Nordhaven AP
Capability
AP Automation & Invoice Workflow
Change type
Replacing an existing system
Specification
Firm with open items
Issued
10 August 2026
Scope
One capability Named dependencies only
01

The PMC Client

Portfolio profile, segment, operating model - and who decides what

Sample

1.1  Portfolio at a glance

Properties
71
Residential units
18,400
Asset mix
3Conventional market-rate majority, an affordable segment, one student asset
States
3Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky
Dominant market
NashvilleCharlotte and Louisville secondary

1.2  Ownership and operating model

Merrowfield is both an owner-operator and a fee manager. Roughly two thirds of the portfolio is owned; the balance is managed for third-party owners. On fee-managed assets, a portfolio-wide vendor requires owner approval in addition to Merrowfield's own. Expect that in your commercial timeline.

Accounts payable is centralised at corporate. Invoice coding is performed by an offshore support function, not by site teams.

1.3  Scale context

Corporate and regional headcount sits in the 90 to 120 band. On-site headcount sits in the 400 to 500 band. Site-team turnover is a live consideration for Merrowfield, so training burden and time-to-competence on any new interface will be weighed.

1.4  Portfolio direction

Stable, with selective acquisition. Two properties acquired in the last two quarters are still being brought onto standard corporate processes, and that transition intersects this change directly - see 3.1 and 4.4.

1.5  Who decides what

Technology decisions are owned by a dedicated function, with department heads holding an effective veto over tools touching their own workflow. Corporate approves; the field evaluates.

The operations champion
Owns the evaluation and convenes it. Recommends, does not approve.
The finance approver
Owns budget and signs. Also holds termination authority on the outgoing service.
The technology function
Owns integration and security review. Approval is joint with finance; this is not a formality.
Regional leadership
Consulted on operational fit. Not a decision seat.

Four decision seats are involved. To proceed you will need the technology function and the finance approver aligned in the same pass.

1.6  Standing requirements you should know before the call

  • SOC 2 Type II is a hard requirement for any vendor deployed portfolio-wide. There is no waiver path.
  • Merrowfield runs best-of-breed anchored on its property management system rather than a single-platform strategy, and weighs native integration with that platform heavily in any decision.
  • Appetite for AI and automation is receptive where it removes manual steps and cautious where it makes decisions without a person in the loop.
02

Their Ecosystem

Every system already in place, and where this product sits inside it

Sample

2.1  The platform anchor

Merrowfield runs Corevantage as its property management system, with the accounting, leasing, resident portal and maintenance modules in use.

One legacy instance remains in service for the affordable segment, and a migration off it is pending. This is the single most consequential fact in this section for your implementation: one of the downstream consumers of this capability will change during the change window. Build against the target state, not the current one.

2.2  The stack skeleton

What Merrowfield runs today, and what it does not. The absences are as briefing-relevant as the presences - they tell you which adjacent conversations are open and which are closed.

In place, vendor named In place, vendor not recorded Not run

Data, systems, infrastructure & enablement

Property management system
Corevantage
Document management
Verity Docs
Business intelligence and reporting
In place
Data warehouse
Not run
Integration and workflow automation
Not run

Demand, marketing & leasing

CRM and leasing operations
Corevantage native
Listings and syndication
In place
AI leasing and conversion automation
Not run
Call intelligence
Not run

Development, construction & creative services

Construction and capital project management
Brightspan PM
Renovation procurement and materials logistics
Not run

Finance, revenue, risk & asset strategy

Accounting and financial system of record
Corevantage
AP automation and invoice workflowThis capability
Cadenwell AP
Procure-to-pay and purchasing
Latchford Supply
Payments infrastructure
Kestrel Pay
Budgeting and forecasting
In place
Collections and delinquency management
Not run

Property operations & physical infrastructure

Maintenance management and work orders
Corevantage native
Utility billing and cost recovery
Meridian Utility
Turn execution and make-ready
In place
Smart building platform and IoT
Not run

Resident experience & retention

Resident portal and community app
Corevantage native
Resident feedback and sentiment
In place
Package management
Not run

Cross-cutting infrastructure & governance

eSignature and agreement execution
Signory
Security awareness training
In place
Compliance automation and regulatory intelligence
Not run

2.3  Where this product sits

The capability is served today by Cadenwell AP. How it runs now:

  • Invoices arrive on two paths - by email to a central mailbox, and through a supplier-facing portal.
  • Coding is performed by the offshore support function against a shared chart of accounts held in the accounting system.
  • Approval routes through a two-step chain, site level then regional.
  • Payment execution happens outside the AP tool, in Kestrel Pay.

2.4  Integration posture

Two integrations are contractually required in this area: the property management system and the payments processor. Both must be live for the capability to function.

Merrowfield builds and maintains custom work against its core platform, and has the internal capability to do so. Plan for a client who will ask precise questions about your API surface and will likely want to extend it.

What Merrowfield requires

The specification

Ten requirements, derived from the engagement and stated forward

These are the requirements Merrowfield now holds for this capability. They are written as specifications for what comes next, not as an account of what came before. Every one of them is something you can build, staff, evidence or price.

Configuration and access

R1

Invoice approval routing must be configurable at property and regional grain by Merrowfield administrators, without a vendor professional-services engagement.

R10

Role-based access control must distinguish site-level invoice entry from regional approval authority.

Reporting and data access

R2

Per-property and per-portfolio spend reporting must be exportable on demand in a structured format, without a report-build request.

Integration and evidence

R3

Bi-directional integration with the property management system must be documented and tested, evidenced before contracting rather than committed to during implementation.

R6

Maintenance invoices must match to work orders without manual re-entry.

Proposal form

R4

Integration and implementation cost must be quantified line by line in the proposal, not scoped after signature.

R8

Pricing must be presented on a per-unit basis, which is how Merrowfield budgets this capability.

Service and escalation

R5

A named account contact and a defined escalation path are required, and the escalation path must be documented in the proposal.

Measurement

R7

Invoice-to-payment cycle time must be measurable from go-live, with the baseline established during implementation.

Constraints

R9

The change must not disturb the bundled services named in section 03.

03

Their Dependencies

What the change touches, upstream and downstream

Sample

3.1  Upstream - what feeds this capability

  • General ledger and chart of accounts, held in Corevantage. Invoice coding depends on it entirely. Two recently acquired properties are not yet mapped to the standard chart.
  • Procure-to-pay approval chain, Latchford Supply. Purchase orders originate here and must reconcile against invoices downstream.
  • Property and unit roster. Drives cost allocation and the per-unit basis on which this capability is budgeted.

3.2  Downstream - what consumes its output

  • Payments execution, Kestrel Pay. Approved invoices become payment instructions here.
  • General ledger posting and period close. Timing is constrained by close; see 4.2.
  • Work-order invoice matching, Corevantage maintenance module.
  • Owner reporting for the fee-managed portion of the portfolio.

3.3  What the change touches - StackSmart analysis

Three findings about Merrowfield's stack that bear directly on your implementation plan:

  • Three integration points are not currently instrumented - the payments handoff, the work-order match, and the affordable-segment legacy instance. There is no existing monitoring to inherit; you will be establishing it.
  • One downstream consumer will change during the window. The pending migration off the legacy instance means the integration must be built against the target state. Building against the current state creates rework inside the same window.
  • The offshore coding function sits between intake and approval. Any change to the coding interface is a training event for a team outside the on-site structure, on a different schedule and in a different time zone.

3.4  Scope of this brief

This brief covers one capability. Adjacent systems appear only where this change touches them directly.

Merrowfield's wider technology roadmap, its plans in other capability areas, and its sequencing decisions outside this change are not included here. If your conversation moves in that direction, it moves with Merrowfield and not with us.

3.5  Deployment scope

Phase one covers 58 of the 71 properties. The affordable segment, 13 properties, is not yet confirmed as in or out of phase one - see 4.6.

3.6  Configuration constraints

  • Integration must target the post-migration platform instance, not the current legacy one.
  • Configuration must not assume a single-state footprint. Three states are in scope, and approval thresholds differ by region.
04

The Roadmap to the Change

Sequence, timing windows, and what has already been decided

Sample

4.1  What is already decided

Merrowfield has selected you for this capability, replacing an existing system. That decision is made. This is not an evaluation and you are not in a competitive set.

StackSmart did not make this choice. Merrowfield did.

4.2  The change window

The change window falls in the first half of 2027. Implementation work cannot begin before the second quarter of Merrowfield's fiscal year, and cutover must sit outside a period-close window.

This window is set by Merrowfield's operating calendar and its dependency order. It is not a contract date.

4.3  Sequence position

This change is sequenced early among Merrowfield's planned work for the period. Expect momentum rather than a long internal queue.

4.4  Dependency order

  1. Chart-of-accounts mapping for the two recently acquired properties completes before coding configuration begins.
  2. The migration target state is confirmed before integration build starts.
  3. The payments handoff is tested before the first live payment run.

4.5  Readiness

Appetite for this change is active. Merrowfield describes itself as strong on process readiness and constrained on internal technical capacity during the window - so implementation effort you can absorb rather than delegate to them will land well.

4.6  What to expect on the first call

Firm with open items

The requirements are confirmed. Three specific items remain to close. Come prepared to answer them.

The open items
  1. Chart-of-accounts mapping for the two recently acquired properties is not finalised on Merrowfield's side.
  2. Whether utility invoices route through this capability or stay on a separate path is unconfirmed.
  3. Whether the affordable segment is in phase-one scope is undecided.

4.7  What it takes to execute

To move this change forward you will need two things in the same pass: the technology function's integration and security review, and the finance approver's sign-off. Neither is a formality, and on fee-managed assets owner approval sits behind the finance approver.

Two of the open items above are ones you can help close on the first call - the utility-invoice routing question, and whether the affordable segment sits in phase one. Coming with a recommendation on each will shorten the sequence.