The short answer
Quotes built on experience alone vary by who produced them and drift over time. A calculation from measurable inputs is consistent, explainable and improvable.
The improvement comes from comparing quoted against actual, which is the step almost nobody does.
Inputs worth capturing
| Input | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Area by type of space | Rates differ substantially |
| Frequency | Drives total hours |
| Access constraints | Out of hours costs more |
| Travel | Especially for smaller contracts |
| Consumables included | Frequently forgotten entirely |
| Periodic deep work | Quoted as if it were routine |
The last two rows are where margin disappears. Both are easy to omit from a quote and both recur for the life of the contract.
Record the assumptions
- Write down what was assumed about access and hours.
- Write down what is included and what is not.
- Note anything unusual seen during the site visit.
- Keep it with the quote, not in somebody's memory.
- Refer to it when the client asks for something extra.
Point five is where this pays for itself. Scope creep is much easier to discuss when the original assumption is written down.
Compare quoted against actual
- Record actual hours per site
- Compare against what was quoted
- Look at the pattern across contracts, not one site
- Adjust the calculation where it is systematically wrong
- Flag contracts that have drifted, for renegotiation
Without this loop a systematic underquote repeats on every new contract. With it, the calculation improves with every job.
Know which contracts to decline
A calculation makes it visible when a contract cannot be delivered at the price expected. That is useful information, and declining is a legitimate outcome.
Contracts won below cost do not become profitable through efficiency. They consume the capacity that better work needed.