A contractor growth plan needs both delivery capacity and a defensible acquisition allowance. Passing one test does not make the other disappear.
It is possible to model enough contribution to support acquisition spending and still ask a crew to deliver more work than its calendar allows. It is also possible to have open crew-days but too little contribution left after delivery and estimate costs to support the proposed budget.
Use the Contractor Estimate-to-Job Planner → to keep those questions side by side. All figures below are a fictional USD scenario, not contractor benchmarks.
First, compare the goal with available crew-days
An owner wants ten jobs in one planning period. Each job requires three crew-days, and 24 crew-days are available after existing work.
The goal requires 10 × 3 = 30 crew-days. Capacity is floor(24 ÷ 3) = eight jobs. The ten-job goal therefore exceeds capacity by two jobs and six crew-days. This is a warning to resolve before buying demand, not a recommendation to shorten jobs or overbook.
Define crew-days consistently. If “one crew” changes size between jobs, or a specialty worker is the bottleneck, revisit the unit. A single average cannot show trade sequencing, weather interruptions or every job’s schedule.
Then separate contribution, estimates and marketing
Each fictional job brings USD5,000 revenue and costs USD3,000 in variable delivery expenses. That leaves USD2,000 contribution per job, or USD20,000 at the ten-job goal, before marketing and overhead.
Assume 50% of genuine inquiries reach a completed estimate and 25% of completed estimates become won jobs. Ten jobs imply 40 estimates and 80 inquiries. If each completed estimate costs USD50 and that cost is explicitly excluded from both delivery and marketing costs, estimate preparation adds USD2,000.
With a USD4,000 included marketing budget, remaining contribution is 20,000 − 2,000 − 4,000 = USD14,000. Overhead, taxes and any omitted expenses still need funding; USD14,000 is not net profit.
What is the modeled acquisition allowance?
Suppose the owner wants USD1,200 contribution retained per job, or USD12,000 across ten jobs. After the separately excluded estimates, the acquisition allowance is 20,000 − 12,000 − 2,000 = USD6,000. Dividing by the 80 modeled inquiries gives USD75 per inquiry.
The entered USD4,000 budget divided by those inquiries is USD50 per inquiry. It is a budget ratio, not evidence that inquiries can be bought at USD50. The USD75 allowance is a modeled threshold, not a market quote. Neither number overrides the eight-job capacity limit.
Avoid charging estimate preparation twice—or not at all
If estimate preparation is already in variable delivery cost, explicitly mark it included. The planner then uses zero incremental estimate cost rather than charging again. If it is excluded and unknown, leave it unknown. Contribution minus marketing alone can still appear as a labeled partial figure, but a complete remaining-contribution or allowance figure is unavailable.
Changing the cost definition to produce a more attractive allowance does not improve the business. Record what is included, use the same definition across scenarios and ask the responsible person to verify the missing cost.
Choose the constraint to resolve
If capacity is the constraint, compare a lower job goal or a separately funded crew scenario. If contribution is the constraint, inspect scope, cost inputs and retained contribution without assuming a price change will work. If stage rates are uncertain, review the inquiry-to-estimate-to-job method → before raising spend.
ThinkDMG’s home-services marketing work → is relevant when the operating assumptions are ready for a marketing conversation. A reviewed PPC plan → should use those assumptions rather than substitute a generic percentage of revenue.
