My concern involves inconsistencies between adjusted unit values and adjusted sale prices for an office building. In summary, 3 commercial office sales were used: #1 sold for $192,500 and has an unadjusted $/SF GBA of $93.90. #2 sold for $60,500 with unadjusted $/SF GBA of $39.21. #3 sold for $190,850 with unadjusted $/SF GBA of $42.37. Net adjustments for each sale are -50%, +10% and 0%, respectively. Therefore, the estimated value of the subject by overall sales price is: #1 = $96,250 #2 = $66,550 #3 = $190,850 However, notice that the indicated value of the subject based on unit of comparison (price per SF of GBA) is much tighter: #1 = $46.95 #2 = $43.13 #3 = $42.37 Of course, the appraiser selected a unit value within this range and applied it to the square footage of the subject to arrive at his market value estimate: $45.00/SF x 3,500 SF GBA = $157,500. Arguably, the market lacks an adequate number of sales. However, unfortunately, this method does not account for the wide bracket of adjusted sale prices among the comparables, ranging from $66,500 to $191,000. This leads me to question whether these sales are truly comparable and competitive, and if one or more of them could even be considered an adequate substitute for the subject. Any thoughts...?