Case Studies
A Contractor Bridges Payroll Between Draws
How a site-work contractor with lumpy draw revenue was structured around a job's payment schedule rather than around a calendar month.
The short answer
A site-work contractor carrying three jobs at overlapping stages needed materials and two payroll runs before the next progress draw. The facility was sized to the front-end cost rather than to contract value, with the repayment horizon built around the draw schedule so it cleared when the job paid.
Important disclosure
Illustrative scenario. This is a composite built from common file patterns to show how a structure is reasoned about — not a specific Express Capital customer, and not a representation of results any individual business obtained. Terms and outcomes vary with each file.
- Industry
- Site work / excavation
- Time in business
- 6 years
- Pattern in statements
- $40K–$210K monthly swings
- Need
- Materials + 2 payroll runs
- Structure
- Short revenue-based working capital
- Term shaped around
- The next two progress draws
Key takeaways
- Lumpy draw revenue was explained upfront, so it was read as trade rhythm rather than instability.
- The facility was sized to front-end cost, not to the value of the contracts.
- The term was matched to the draw schedule, with buffer for a late general contractor.
- The structure retired itself as the job paid.
The file arrived looking, on a spreadsheet, like a business in trouble: deposits swinging between $40,000 and $210,000 with no obvious rhythm. Read by someone who does not know the trade, that is volatility. Read against a draw schedule, it is three jobs at overlapping stages behaving exactly as they should.
What the statements were actually saying
The heavy months were draws landing. The quiet months were jobs sitting at 50–70% complete with material and labour already spent. Nothing about the pattern indicated distress — it indicated a contractor whose money leaves before it arrives, which is the defining feature of the trade.
How it was sized
The instinct is to size against contract value. The correct move is to size against the gap: materials for the current phase plus the payroll runs falling before the next draw. That is a materially smaller number, and a smaller facility repaid on schedule is worth far more to a contractor than a large one that strains.
How it was structured
- 1The repayment horizon was built around the next two draws rather than a fixed calendar term.
- 2Buffer was added on the assumption that the general contractor would pay late, because they usually do.
- 3The payment was tested against a week with no draw at all.
- 4The facility was designed to clear as the job closed, not to roll into the next one.
The generalisable lesson
Two things did the work here, and neither was pricing. The contractor explained the pattern instead of leaving it to be guessed at, and the structure was matched to how the job actually pays. Those two moves are available to any contractor, on any file.
Express Capital Funding · Direct lender
See what your revenue supports
We underwrite in-house and fund from our own balance sheet. $10,000+ in monthly revenue and 6+ months in business is the gate — a decision the same day, funding in as little as 24–48 hours.
4.8★ from 579 reviews · A+ BBB accredited · $250M+ funded
Keep reading
Published by Express Capital Funding, a direct lender to U.S. small and mid-sized businesses. This article is general information, not financial, legal, or tax advice, and is not an offer or commitment to lend.
← More case studies