John Kenney, CPRC, CEO, Cotney Consulting Group - September 2026
I have sat in more than a few project closeout meetings where everyone knew the job had missed its expected margin but no one could agree on why. Accounting had the final number. The project manager remembered the schedule interruptions. The foreman knew the crew worked more hours than planned and the estimator believed the labor allowance was reasonable when the bid went out. Each person had part of the story but the company did not have enough reliable information to put the full picture together.
This is where many roofing contractors discover the difference between having job records and having a true cost history. Most companies have plenty of records. They have estimates, payroll reports, purchase orders, invoices, daily logs, job-cost reports and years of completed work. Some have more information available than they know what to do with. The problem is that much of it sits in separate systems, uses different cost codes or lacks enough detail to be useful the next time an estimator prices similar work.
A final gross-profit percentage tells you whether a job performed well overall. It does not tell you where labor was gained or lost. It does not explain whether tear-off took longer than expected, if material handling slowed the crew, if detail work was underestimated or if repeated mobilizations affected productivity. Without that detail, the company may know the result but still be left guessing the cause.
Accurate estimating depends on understanding what the company can actually produce under real field conditions. That information does not come from a takeoff program or a general industry labor table. It comes from completed work, properly tracked and honestly reviewed.
I have seen companies continue using the same production rates for years, even though their crews, project types and operating conditions had changed. The estimates looked detailed. The quantities were correct. Material pricing was current. Yet the labor assumptions were based more on habit than on the company’s recent performance. This is one of the easiest ways for margin to begin slipping without anyone noticing immediately.
Building a better cost history starts in the field and this is where the process often becomes difficult. Foremen and project managers are expected to keep work moving, solve problems, coordinate crews, communicate with customers and manage safety. Asking them to record labor against detailed cost codes can feel like one more administrative burden unless they understand why it matters. The purpose is not to create paperwork for accounting. It is to preserve the lessons from the job while they are still fresh.
Take a low-slope reroof as an example. If every labor hour is charged to one general code, the company may know the total project exceeded budget by 400 hours. That number alone does not help the estimator very much. The loss may have come from tear-off, deck preparation, installation, membrane work, perimeter details or rooftop equipment flashing. Those are all very different problems.
The same thing happens in steep-slope work. A company may know that a residential reroof took longer than expected but not whether the cause was access, landscaping protection, steepness, loading, multiple layers, deck repairs or unusually complex flashing conditions. If all those factors disappear into one total labor number, the company has very little to carry forward.
Cost codes do not have to become so detailed that no one can use them. In fact, overly complicated systems usually fail. They need to be detailed enough to identify the major phases of work and simple enough for the field to use consistently.
Consistency is more important than complexity. One estimator cannot code sheet metal details one way while another estimator includes them under roofing labor. One foreman cannot separate setup and loading while another charges every hour to installation. When the company changes definitions from one job to the next, comparisons become unreliable even when the reports appear complete.
This is why leadership has to stay involved. Cost history cannot be left entirely to accounting, because accounting can only report the information it receives. Owners and senior managers need to understand how estimates are structured, how labor is coded in the field and how completed jobs are reviewed. When there is a variance, someone needs to ask what happened before the explanation is forgotten. The best time to begin that conversation is not six weeks after the project is finished.
Strong contractors compare estimated and actual labor while work is underway. They review major cost categories weekly and look for movement before the job is too far along to correct. If insulation installation is consuming more hours than planned, the project manager should know early enough to investigate. If material usage is running high, someone should determine whether waste, damage, ordering or field conditions are responsible. This type of review is not about assigning blame, it is about understanding performance.
I have found that the most useful questions are usually straightforward. What did the estimate assume? What did the crew encounter? Were the planned production rates realistic? Was the crew size appropriate? Did access slow the work? Were there schedule interruptions? Was the material staged properly? Did another trade interfere with progress? Was there rework?
Those answers help separate a weak estimate from an operational problem. That distinction matters because the response should not always be the same. If the estimate was too aggressive, the production rate needs to be adjusted. If the issue involved crew training, supervision or planning, simply raising the labor allowance may hide the problem rather than solve it.
Cost history should improve operations as well as estimating. Over time, patterns become easier to recognize. A particular crew may perform well on large open roof areas but struggle on detail-heavy projects. Certain roof systems may consistently require more labor than expected. One type of project may perform well when material is rooftop-loaded and poorly when it has to be moved repeatedly. Some customers or general contractors may create scheduling conditions that need to be considered during bidding. That information becomes valuable only when the company interprets it correctly.
Not every unusual job should change the standard production rate. A project with restricted access, extreme heat, repeated mobilizations, concealed deck damage or owner-driven delays should be identified as an exception. If every result is averaged together without context, the company can end up building unusual conditions into normal pricing.
Historical data still requires judgment. This is where experienced estimators, project managers and field leaders need to work together. The numbers may show that a phase ran over budget but the people involved can explain why. One without the other is incomplete. Data without context can be misleading. Experience without data can become opinion.
A meaningful closeout process brings the two together. The review does not need to be long or overly formal. It should compare estimated and actual labor, material, equipment and subcontractor costs by major phase. It should also record the conditions that affected the outcome. The most important part is making sure those findings are available to the estimator the next time similar work is priced.
Too many companies close the job in accounting and then move on. The estimator never sees the actual results. The project manager does not review the original assumptions. The field lessons stay with the foreman until they are forgotten or that person leaves the company. It’s a lost opportunity.
I have always believed that estimating does not really end when the proposal is submitted. The estimate creates the plan but the process is not complete until the work is performed, the results are reviewed and the lessons are carried into future pricing. The estimator establishes the expectations. Operations execute the work. The field records what happened. Accounting captures the financial result. Leadership makes sure the information comes back around. When that cycle is working, every completed project improves the next estimate.
Technology can help organize the process but it cannot create discipline. A company may have strong estimating, project management and accounting systems and still lack dependable cost history if labor codes are inconsistent, daily reports are late or departments use different definitions. The software is not the solution itself. It is the tool that supports the process.
The most valuable estimating database a roofing contractor can build already exists inside the company. It is being created every day by crews, project managers, estimators and accounting staff. The challenge is capturing it in a form that can be understood, compared and used.
After more than forty-five years in this industry, I have seen the same estimating mistakes repeated many times, not because contractors lacked experience but because the lessons from completed work never made it back to the front of the process.
A company with a dependable cost history does not eliminate estimating risk. Roofing will always involve variables. What it does is reduce the number of assumptions the contractor has to make.
The work completed yesterday should make the estimate prepared tomorrow better. That is how estimating accuracy improves; not from one new system or one new report but from a company learning consistently from its own work.
John Kenney, CPRC is CEO of Cotney Consulting Group, Plant City. He has decades of experience on commercial roofing projects, providing a unique understanding of what it takes to succeed in roofing – on the roof, in the office and at scale. Cotney Consulting offers COO on Demand, online training, technology solutions, business advisory consulting, collections, contracts, Castagra estimating training, safety and OSHA training. John partners with FRSA to provide educational seminars. For more information, contact John at jkenney@cotneyconsulting.com or 813-851-4173.