A fire damage cleanup contractor submitted an estimate that looked accurate on the surface. But when we reconstructed the scope of work to match the labor hours they claimed — "4 workers for 10 days" — the line item codes they used didn't add up. The review reconciled their own timeline with correct pricing, revealing a 23% discrepancy.
A homeowner in Oregon experienced fire damage and hired an environmental cleanup contractor to perform post-fire cleaning and remediation. The contractor submitted an estimate for $61,633 using Xactimate software. The scope of work looked reasonable — the rooms matched, the tasks made sense, and the contractor's own notes said "4 workers for 10 days."
But the homeowner questioned the total and requested an independent review before approving the work.
Invoice total seemed high for the described scope (4 workers, 10 days)
Contractor's estimate included 551 labor hours, but 410 hours matched their stated timeline
Line item codes used didn't match industry best practices for this type of work
Materials quantities seemed inconsistent (1 PPE change per day vs. industry standard of 4)
The goal wasn't to estimate what we thought was reasonable. It was to reconstruct what actually happened based on the contractor's own stated timeline, then price it correctly using industry-standard Xactimate codes.
Contractor's notes: "4 workers for 10 days." That's 410 hours of labor (7.8 hrs/day site work + 2.46 hrs/day travel/breaks/cleanup per worker).
Each Xactimate line item code has built-in labor assumptions. Extract those assumptions and compare to the 410-hour timeline.
Write a scope of work that matches 410 hours of labor. If the contractor's codes assume 551 hours, replace them with codes that match reality. If work is missing from the estimate but needed to reach 410 hours, add it.
Apply industry-standard Xactimate codes, correct material quantities, and proper equipment usage to the reconstructed scope.
The Pattern:
The contractor used Xactimate line item codes that assumed multiple passes of "light" cleaning and "light" HEPA vacuuming. This inflated the square footage quantities and built-in labor hours far beyond the 410 hours they claimed.
Example: Stairs
The contractor's code assumed 3x passes of light cleaning across 419.57 SF. The correct code uses 1x pass of heavy cleaning across the actual 139.86 SF. Even though the unit price is higher ($1.01 vs. $0.81), the total cost is lower because the quantity and labor assumptions match the 410-hour timeline.
This pattern repeated across dozens of rooms.
Key Labor Adjustments:
The Logic: If the contractor's own notes say "4 workers for 10 days" (410 hours), the line item codes should reflect 410 hours of work. When the estimate's codes assume 551 hours, the pricing doesn't match the timeline. We corrected the codes to match what they said they did.
The Pattern:
The contractor's estimate included only 1 PPE change per worker per day. Industry standard for hazmat-level fire cleanup is 4 changes per day (for breaks, wear, contamination). To accurately price the 410 hours of work they claimed, we corrected the materials quantities.
Key Adjustments:
Net Materials Adjustment: +$873
The Logic: This isn't about being generous — it's about pricing the work correctly. If they worked 410 hours doing hazmat-level cleanup, they would have used 4 PPE changes per worker per day. The contractor's estimate didn't account for this, so we corrected it to match industry standards for the work they claimed to perform.
The Pattern:
The contractor's estimate included 3x cleaning passes for ceilings and walls, but zero floor cleaning. Industry protocol for fire damage cleanup requires detailed HEPA vacuuming and heavy cleaning of all floors. If they worked 410 hours, they would have cleaned the floors. We added the missing scope to reconcile the labor hours with the work actually performed.
Scope Additions:
The Logic: You don't clean ceilings and walls three times and leave the floors untouched — not on a fire cleanup job. The contractor either forgot to include floor cleaning in the estimate, or they did it and didn't bill for it. Either way, if they worked 410 hours, the scope should include floor cleaning. We're reconstructing what actually happened, not just cutting charges.
The Pattern:
The contractor used a bulk charge of $1,425 for duct removal instead of using the appropriate Xactimate line items that break down labor and materials by linear footage. We replaced the bulk charge with proper line items to accurately price the work.
The Logic: Xactimate has specific codes for duct removal that calculate labor hours based on linear footage. Using a bulk charge instead of proper line items makes it harder to verify the work and easier to inflate the price. We corrected it to match industry-standard estimating practices.
We didn't estimate what we thought was reasonable. We reconstructed what the contractor said they did — 4 workers for 10 days — and priced it correctly using industry-standard codes and materials quantities.
After presenting the review findings, the contractor agreed to the justified amount of $47,641.82 — no negotiation, no pushback. They knew the estimate didn't match their own timeline.
The homeowner paid $13,991 less than the original invoice — and got a scope of work that accurately reflected what was actually performed.
The scope can look accurate but still be mispriced. This contractor used real Xactimate codes, real room names, and a plausible timeline — but the line item codes they chose had built-in labor assumptions that didn't match the 410 hours they claimed.
Labor hours are hidden in the line item codes. Most homeowners don't know that Xactimate codes have built-in labor assumptions. A "light cleaning 3x" code will always calculate more labor hours than a "heavy cleaning 1x" code — even if the work performed is identical.
Reconciliation goes both ways. We corrected inflated line item codes (-$14,811) and added missing scope that should have been included (+$10,222). The goal is accuracy, not just finding ways to reduce the bill.
Independent review saved this homeowner $13,991. The contractor agreed to the justified amount without argument because the review was based on their own timeline, not arbitrary cuts.
Send it over. I'll take a look and tell you if it smells funny — no cost, no commitment.
SUBMIT YOUR INVOICE