Benchmarks
How much repair revenue leaks out of your inspection reports?
Every inspection report is really two documents in one: a compliance record, and a sales pipeline. Here's what the published numbers say about how much of the second one gets worked.
The funnel, with real numbers attached
Your inspectors write a report. Somewhere in it are deficiencies: things that failed, things that are aging out, things that need a part or a repair visit. Every one of those is a sale waiting to happen. Whether it becomes one depends entirely on what happens after the report gets filed, and there's now published benchmark research on exactly where that process tends to break down.
ServiceTrade, whose field service software runs inside a large number of fire protection and mechanical contractors, has published two pieces of research worth reading together: The Deficiency Efficiency Guide and a companion piece, 5 Steps to Growing Pull-Through Repair Revenue. Between them, they lay out a two-stage funnel with real numbers at each stage, drawn from their own customer base.
Stage one is finding the deficiency at all. Top-performing contractors flag deficiencies on about 25% of their work orders. Bottom-half performers document them roughly 10% of the time — not necessarily because there's less to find, but because inspectors aren't consistently writing up what they see.
Stage two is turning a documented deficiency into an actual quote, and this is where the gap widens. ServiceTrade's benchmark research puts top performers at converting deficiencies into quotes 60% of the time. Bottom-half performers convert what they find into a quote only about 10% of the time. Same deficiency, same report, six times less likely to ever become a proposal a customer can say yes to.
A second vendor, a different measurement, the same story
KomplyOS, a separate compliance-inspection software vendor, publishes its own version of this number, measured end to end rather than stage by stage. In its guide on pricing fire protection services, it states that contractors with a strong deficiency-to-proposal workflow convert 30% to 50% of identified deficiencies directly into paid repair work — quoting and closing combined — and notes that "this pull-through revenue can equal or exceed the inspection revenue itself."
That's a different measurement than ServiceTrade's stage-by-stage numbers, so the two shouldn't be multiplied together as if they came from the same funnel. But they land on the same conclusion from two different vendors watching two different sets of contractors: a meaningful share of what your inspectors find never turns into revenue, and the gap between "found it" and "got paid for it" is where the money sits.
What that looks like on a 10-tech firm
ESTIMATE — the numbers below are an illustration, not a real firm's books. Say a 10-tech fire protection ITM company does $2,000,000 a year in inspection revenue. ServiceTrade's guide to repair-revenue metrics, 6 Key Metrics That Boost Repair Revenue, puts fire protection's inspection-to-repair ratio at roughly 1:1 — its own example states that a company doing $5,000,000 in inspections should expect to generate roughly $5,000,000 in additional repair work from the deficiencies found on those same inspections. Scaled down to that 10-tech firm, that implies about $2,000,000 of potential repair revenue sitting inside a year's worth of its reports.
Now apply the quote-conversion numbers from the section above. At a bottom-half conversion rate of roughly 10%, about $200,000 of that $2,000,000 gets turned into an actual quote a customer can approve (10% × $2,000,000). At a top-performer conversion rate of 60%, about $1,200,000 gets quoted (60% × $2,000,000). That's a roughly $1,000,000-a-year gap between the two — and it's before anyone has even asked whether the quotes that do go out get approved. Nothing closes if it's never sent.
What the top-performer numbers imply
The vendors don't just publish conversion rates — they publish what closing that gap is worth. ServiceTrade's research found that fire protection contractors in the top half of pull-through performance earn 38% more per work order than bottom-half performers, and 99% more per customer — effectively double. Across every industry segment it measured, contractors who prioritize deficiency management earn 2x more revenue per customer than those who don't.
That's not a marketing multiplier. It's the direct, compounding effect of turning more of what your inspectors already find into quotes, and following up on more of what you send. None of it requires new equipment, new certifications, or a different inspection process. It requires someone whose job is working the deficiencies that are already sitting in the reports you already generate.
See what's sitting unquoted in your own reports
Send your last three months of inspection reports to the free audit and get back a list of everything that was never priced.
Start the free audit