Consolidating facility services under a single integrated partner is widely advocated and frequently beneficial. It is not universally correct. Consolidation works where services are interdependent, where accountability currently fragments across vendors, where management bandwidth for vendor coordination is scarce, and where the site is large enough that a single partner can deploy a dedicated management team. The gains are real. One escalation path eliminates the common situation where a problem spanning two vendors is addressed by neither. Shared supervision and support staff reduce overhead duplication. Single mobilisation of equipment and consumables improves utilisation. A unified SLA simplifies measurement. Monthly review involves one conversation rather than five. Consolidation performs poorly in several situations. Where a service requires genuine specialist capability, such as high-voltage electrical maintenance, lift AMC, fire system servicing or specialist laboratory cleaning, bundling it with general FM produces a sub-contracted arrangement with an added margin layer and reduced accountability. Where the site is small, a single partner cannot justify dedicated management, and the consolidation benefit evaporates. Where a single partner failure would halt all services simultaneously, concentration risk may be unacceptable for critical facilities. The practical middle path adopted by many large organisations is consolidation of soft services, which are housekeeping, security, pantry, waste, landscaping and front-of-house, under one partner, with technical AMCs for specialist equipment retained separately under OEM or specialist contracts, coordinated by the integrated partner. The question is not whether to consolidate but which boundary produces accountability without diluting capability.