We reviewed the construction payment software in use today. Retainage, the payer's form, approval routing, the waiver: all of it is automated, and some of it very well. The percentage complete that all of it is computed from is typed in by a person. That is the step nobody removed.
The payer's exact form, carried over period to period. Documented savings of 22 to 80 hours a month.
The percent complete per line is entered by hand before any of it runs.
Payment execution with waiver escrow, and they do verify the money moved.
Only inside their own rail, and they charge 0.2 to 0.22 percent of the contract for it.
Deadlines by state, preliminary notices, waiver forms with their statute.
They tell you the date. They are not wired to the phase, so nothing opens or closes.
They extract payment milestones and obligations from the contract and remind you.
They extract and remember. They do not move money, and they price from 30,000 a year.
Scheduling, job costing, daily logs, the whole build.
Getting paid is a module inside them, and progress still starts as a typed number.
Field evidence closes the phase and the phase produces the amount, with the jurisdiction rule already applied.
Residential, billing the homeowner directly. Not the subcontractor billing a GC, and not commercial work.
Categories, not scorecards. Every vendor above does its own job better than we would.
We call it Match-On-Bank™.
Two of the large rails do verify that the money arrived, and it is a real capability. Both do it only for payments that travel inside their own rail, and both price it as a share of the contract.
Outside those rails, the question of whether the money actually landed goes back to being a reconciliation somebody does by hand. Here it is the condition that opens the next phase, and it is not priced per transaction.
| Figure | Source |
|---|---|
| 299 billion, annual cost of slow payment | Rabbet 2025 |
| 56 days waiting after submitting | Billd 2025 |
| 9.2% of contract value lost to poor management | WorldCC |
| 22 to 80 hours a month on paperwork | Vendor case studies |
| 0.2 to 0.22% charged to verify inside a closed rail | Published pricing |
G702 and G703 are the subcontractor-to-GC world. That is a different buyer and we have not built for it.
We do not compete on managing the build. The argument here is getting paid for it.
Tamper-evident custody of the evidence blob is the open moat in this market and it is not built. It will be said here when it is.
QuickBooks, Xero and Sage are where the paid document lands. Replacing them was never the plan.
