NOT ALL GCS ARE WORTH WORKING FOR.
Concrete subcontractors working 4 to 6 GC relationships carry very different true profitability on each one, and a blended P&L makes them all look the same. GC relationship profitability tracks gross margin by GC, adjusted for payment timing, which is the financing cost of slow payment, change order friction, which is the management hours consumed, and rework frequency. SPM builds ControlQore job costing that groups results by GC every month. Most concrete contractors find 1 to 2 relationships that should be repriced or ended after six months of data.
The blended number is the whole problem. A $5M concrete sub with five GCs and 21% blended gross margin has no way to see that two of those relationships run 28 to 32% while three run 12 to 15%. Every bid decision then gets made on relationship history and backlog need, so the weakest GC draws the same crew hours and the same estimating attention as the strongest one. Nothing about that's a pricing failure. It's a reporting failure, and it costs the business the same either way.
WHAT IT MEANS.
GC relationship profitability is gross margin measured by general contractor, adjusted for payment timing, change order friction, and rework, so each relationship gets judged on what it leaves in the business.
A concrete subcontractor doing $5M across five GC relationships might show 21% blended gross margin, and that number looks fine on its own. But if two of those relationships sit at 28 to 32% and three sit at 12 to 15%, the business is being dragged down by GC relationships that consume capacity the profitable ones could be using. The blended figure hides the whole question.
Across a typical concrete sub with 4 to 6 active GC relationships, true margin by relationship commonly ranges from 28% down to 11%. Six months of job costing separated by GC is enough to see it clearly, and most subs redirect 20 to 30% of capacity once they can.
THREE THINGS THE AVERAGE COVERS UP.
Gross margin alone doesn't capture true profitability
A GC at 22% gross margin who pays net 90, requires weekly superintendent calls, disputes every change order, and generates a 15% rework rate is less profitable than a GC at 18% who pays net 30, runs organized project management, and approves change orders inside a week. Gross margin is where the read starts, and net profit finishes it. Payment timing, management burden, and rework are the adjustments that show what the relationship is truly worth.
The worst GCs get the same capacity as the best
Without data, bid decisions get made on relationship history, gut feel, and backlog need. The result is that a GC who produces 11% gross margin after adjustments draws the same crew capacity and the same estimating attention as one who produces 28%. Redirecting 20% of capacity from the 11% relationship to the 28% relationship, at the same revenue and the same costs, produces a material margin improvement with no additional work.
Low margin GCs get subsidized by the good ones
When a concrete sub takes jobs at 12 to 14% gross margin and overhead is 12%, those jobs barely cover overhead and produce no net profit. They keep the crew busy and they generate revenue on the P&L, but they don't generate cash. The higher margin GC relationships end up carrying the overhead the low margin relationships should be covering themselves.
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN DOLLARS.
A GC at 22% gross margin paying net 90 costs you the financing expense on 60 extra days of receivables against net 30. On $500,000 per year in billings with that GC at an 8% cost of capital, those extra 60 days cost $6,600 per year, which pulls effective margin from 22% down to roughly 20.7%. That's not catastrophic on its own. It changes the ranking when you set that GC beside a clean 18% relationship paying net 30.
A relationship generating two full days of PM time per month in change order disputes consumes $2,000 to $3,000 of overhead with no corresponding billing. None of that reaches the gross margin line, so the relationship looks better on the job cost report than it's in the checking account.
A verified electrical client at $2.3M revenue had three active GC relationships. Separating job costing by GC showed gross margins of 28%, 19%, and 9%. The 9% GC was the busiest relationship, with the highest volume, the most crew hours, and the most management attention, while the 28% GC had two active jobs and got far less focus. The 9% relationship was ended, and $23,000 of employee bonuses were paid within 12 months of the restructuring.
FOUR STEPS TO TRUE MARGIN BY GC.
SPM builds ControlQore with the GC as a job attribute alongside project and phase. Monthly reporting groups jobs by GC and shows gross margin by relationship. After three months the differences start to separate out, and after six months the picture is clear enough to make capacity allocation decisions on with confidence.
For each GC relationship, track average days from invoice submission to payment receipt. Calculate the annual financing cost of payment delay beyond 30 days at your cost of capital, then subtract it from gross margin. A GC at 22% gross margin paying net 90, on $500K of annual billings at an 8% cost of capital, has a true margin closer to 20.7%, which counts when you compare it against a clean 18% GC paying net 30.
Log the management hours each GC relationship consumes in change order negotiations, dispute calls, and superintendent coordination beyond normal project management. Log rework incidents and their labor cost by GC as well. These are real costs that never reach gross margin, and two full days of PM time per month is $2,000 to $3,000 of overhead with nothing billed against it.
Once the profitability picture is clear, the decision tree is short. If the relationship is profitable at current pricing, maintain it or grow it. If it's underperforming because of pricing, reprice the next bid to reflect true cost, and if it's underperforming because of GC behavior, slow payment, change order disputes, or weak project management, decide whether the relationship is worth keeping at any price.
FLAT MONTHLY FEE. NO SURPRISES.
Three tiers, priced by your trailing twelve month revenue. Which one you're in depends on how much of the work you want off your desk. No hourly billing, no payroll, and no add-ons.
| Last 12 months revenue | Monthly fee |
|---|---|
| Up to $1M | $1,900 to $2,900 |
| $1M to $3.5M | $2,600 to $3,900 |
| $3.5M to $6.5M | $3,800 to $5,700 |
| $6.5M to $9.5M | $5,100 to $7,100 |
| $9.5M to $12.5M | $6,100 to $8,500 |
| $12.5M to $15.5M | $7,400 to $11,000 |
| $15.5M to $18.5M | $9,400 to $13,500 |
| $18.5M+ | Quoted individually |
Range reflects the three tiers below. Which one you're in depends on how much of the work you want off your desk. No payroll. No hidden line items.
You stop guessing.
You get the CFO work. Job costing built against the way you estimate, a 13 week cash forecast, monthly WIP, and a meeting every month that ends in decisions rather than a report.
Your bookkeeper keeps doing the books.
You stop touching the books.
Everything in Core, and we run the bookkeeping and the controllership as well. Nobody in your office is answering coding questions or chasing a reconciliation at month end.
We do the books. No payroll.
Every job shows its margin while it's still running.
Everything in Executive, plus the job costing and WIP platform set up, loaded with your cost codes, and managed for you every month. You never have to learn it.
We do the job costing.
FREQUENTLY ASKED.
