Blog Version 4 of 6
Four of the five material dealers eventually submitted pricing for the roof trusses on this project. There was nearly a $3200 price difference between the low and the high, a significant factor in the overall project pricing with the ability to impact the decision-making process if bottom line numbers are used as the primary criteria. Three of the four dealers (Dealer 1, Dealer 3 & Dealer 4) all own their truss manufacturing facilities and utilize a DBA or different operating name from their building material supply names. The fourth dealer (Dealer 5) does not own a truss manufacturing operation but sourced pricing information based on a subcontract/supplier relationship they have directly with an independent manufacturing company. All five included some material for bracing, barge, and fascia but the quantities vary drastically for no apparent reason. Evidently the various dealers view bracing requirements much differently than their competition.
Three of the five dealers (Dealer 1, Dealer 3, Dealer 4) included 7/16” OSB for roof sheathing, of which only two provided pricing for H-clips (Dealer 3 did not). The remaining two dealers included pricing information for 5/8” OSB, which proved to be a significant increase in cost over the thinner 7/16” OSB material. No discussion was provided specifying which material was to be included, and it appears as though the three who provided the 7/16” OSB pricing were looking to cut costs and lessen the roof sheathing burden on the package and overall price. Installers are certain to have a preference based on the weight, hassle of the H-clips and overall sturdiness of the product. Another interesting discrepancy occurred with the exclusion of truss to wall connectors (hurricane ties). Three dealers (Dealer 2, Dealer 4, Dealer 5) included pricing for Simpson H1 hurricane ties, while the other two didn’t include any alternative or solution for this requirement.
Roofing material comparisons prove to be one of the most insightful comparisons based on similar quantities and product uses. Four of the five dealers (Dealer 1, Dealer 2, Dealer 4, Dealer 5) provided pricing information for the same brand and series of asphalt shingles. This provided a rare opportunity to compare dealers directly based on their interpretation of the building plans and their pricing of competitive versus blind items. Overall, the four dealers offering the same product line were within $1000 of each other, all with differing delivery policies and based on differing quantities. Once quantity differences and delivery policies were nullified, the difference was reduced to $500 or roughly 8%. When looking at the packages as presented by the material dealers, including various items not bid by all dealers with the various quantity discrepancies the difference is 21%, which supports the argument that encouraging dealers to price matching material lists removes discrepancies and provides a truer picture of the competitive landscape.
Four of the five dealers included UDL and Ice and Water Shield and rolled Ridge Vent, again with quantity discrepancies which affect bottom line pricing. The fifth dealer (Dealer 2) provided pricing on 30# Felt and 15# Felt, electing not to provide pricing on the more expensive alternatives that are standard for the area. Three of the dealers (Dealer 1, Dealer 3, Dealer 4) included Valley Tin, while the other two did not. And only one of the dealers (Dealer 3) provided vent pipe flashing, rounding out the roofing material offerings.
The Siding and Soffit/Fascia packages were combined into a single grouping, referenced as Exteriors. The various dealers were all told to price a specific brand of prefinished LP Smartside siding. And while they all did as specified, three of the five dealers (Dealer 1, Dealer 3, Dealer 4) took the liberty of pricing less expensive primed corners and trims, rather than a complete prefinished system. This provided a significant price advantage over the two who provided pricing for the full prefinished system. Each dealer had a significant different value for the quantity of pieces of siding required for the project, causing further discrepancies in package pricing and making comparisons difficult. Additional differences included the use of 4” trim boards for inside and outside corners versus prebuilt solutions. Four of the five (Dealer 1, Dealer 3, Dealer 4, Dealer 5) provided prefinished metal soffit and fascia, while Dealer 2 provided a primed wood solution.
This LBM blog post is one of a series of posts outlining the findings from a study conducted on 5 various building material suppliers. To download the entire White Paper visit: https://www.lbmsupply.com/lbm-white-paper or visit https://www.lbmsupply.com/shop for purchase options of unredacted versions with pricing included.