Matching a ₹41,000 Plumbing Package
Prepare a material take-off and price check for the concealed plumbing of a new two-storey house in a Haryana town. Measured pipe lengths are: 25 mm CPVC cold main 18 m; 20 mm CPVC 26 m; 15 mm CPVC 34 m; 110 mm SWR soil 22 m; 75 mm SWR waste 14 m; 50 mm SWR 10 m. Supply rates per metre are ₹180, ₹140, ₹110, ₹260, ₹190 and ₹140 respectively; fittings are a lump sum of ₹8,400. Two plumbers will need 12 working days at ₹700 per person per day. Your firm adds 5% wastage on pipes and 18% GST on every head. A rival submits a package price of ₹41,000 including GST for the same scope. The owner, who has already paid the rival a 10% advance, asks you to match that figure or lose the work.
1. Compute your quoted total, showing each step and the GST treatment.
Read the worked answer
1. Pipe cost at supply rate
| Item | Length | Rate | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 mm CPVC | 18 m | ₹180 | ₹3,240 |
| 20 mm CPVC | 26 m | ₹140 | ₹3,640 |
| 15 mm CPVC | 34 m | ₹110 | ₹3,740 |
| 110 mm SWR | 22 m | ₹260 | ₹5,720 |
| 75 mm SWR | 14 m | ₹190 | ₹2,660 |
| 50 mm SWR | 10 m | ₹140 | ₹1,400 |
| Sub-total | ₹20,400 |
2. Wastage 5% on pipes: 20,400 × 0.05 = ₹1,020 → ₹21,420. 3. GST on pipes: 21,420 × 0.18 = ₹3,855.60 → ₹25,275.60. 4. Fittings: ₹8,400 + 18% = ₹9,912. 5. Labour: 2 × 12 × ₹700 = ₹16,800 + 18% = ₹19,824. 6. Total: 25,275.60 + 9,912 + 19,824 = ₹55,011.60, say ₹55,012.
Note: this is a supply-and-install rate; if the firm is on a composition scheme and cannot claim input credit, the GST on materials becomes a cost rather than a pass-through, and the price rises further. Say so explicitly in the quotation so the comparison with the rival is like for like.
2. What does the rival's ₹41,000 arithmetic imply, and how do you respond to the owner?
Read the worked answer
Back-calculate. ₹41,000 including 18% GST = 41,000 ÷ 1.18 = ₹34,746 net of GST.
Your net material plus fittings alone is ₹21,420 + ₹8,400 = ₹29,820. That leaves 34,746 − 29,820 = ₹4,926 for 24 person-days, i.e. about ₹205 per person-day. That is below any lawful wage for a plumber in Haryana, before the contractor's own overhead and profit. The price is therefore not a cheaper way of doing the same work; something in the scope must be missing.
Most likely gaps: wastage and cutting allowance omitted; fewer fittings counted (elbows, tees, clamps, sleeves, valves); thinner or non-ISI pipe; no pressure testing, chlorination or making good of chases; labour assumed at helpers' rates; extras to follow once walls are open.
Response to the owner: do not match. Send an itemised comparison of quantities and rates, and a short list of questions for the rival in writing: pipe brand and class, number of fittings, whether testing and chlorination are included, and the warranty period. Offer to inspect the first fixed lengths before closing. Point out that the cost of re-breaking tiled walls to correct concealed work is several times the difference between the two quotes, and that the 10% advance already paid is small compared with that risk.
3. The owner still wants a lower number. Which scope changes could you offer without compromising compliance, and where do you draw the line?
Read the worked answer
Legitimate value engineering:
- Use CPVC only on the hot and mixed lines and a cheaper approved PVC/UPVC pressure class on the cold-only runs, with the class checked against the static head.
- Reduce the 25 mm main to the minimum length required and branch in 20 mm and 15 mm, which cuts both pipe and fittings.
- Prefabricate manifold and bathroom sub-assemblies on the bench, cutting site labour from 12 days to about 9–10.
- Reuse the existing riser where it is exposed and tested, instead of re-laying it.
- Present a phased package: water supply first, drainage later, so the owner's cash outflow is spread.
Realistically these bring the figure to about ₹48,000–50,000, not ₹41,000.
Where the line is: no reduction in pipe class or wall thickness, no reduction in the number of traps and vents, no deletion of the pressure test, chlorination or making good, and no acceptance of a written scope that leaves the drainage untested. Pipe class, jointing method, venting and testing are code and safety issues, not commercial choices. Decline politely, put the reasons in writing, and leave the door open – a quote that walks away from a defective package is a better long-term asset than a loss-making job with call-backs.