The same procurement chaos, in pipe and duct

When dispatch software runs smoothly and technicians get to jobs on time, it's tempting to treat operations as under control. For most HVAC and plumbing service companies, the scheduling layer is genuinely working. ServiceTitan or FieldEdge covers the call, coordinates the crew, and closes the work order. That part runs smoothly.

Everything that happens when a tech needs a part is a different story. The requisition leaves the field as a text message, the dispatcher fields the parts call by phone, purchasing re-orders van stock without knowing what each truck is already carrying, and the invoice comes back three weeks after the job closed. Meanwhile, a third of PM agreement customers haven't been billed in advance, even though they've already signed and delivery is underway.

This is mechanical contractor procurement chaos. It's been hiding behind field service management (FSM) deployment numbers, and the data says it's widespread.
‍

What the MSCA data shows

The 2025 MSCA Benchmark Survey (n=323 MSCA member contractors) covers HVAC, plumbing, controls, and piping service companies. The findings on operational infrastructure aren't subtle.

On material and tool tracking: 58% of respondents manage it manually and 11% use no system at all. Only 31% use software, which means 69% of the industry runs procurement through spreadsheets, memory, and phone calls, even as 82% claim to have deployed a mobile FSM app.

Mobile deployment for FSM is high. Software-supported procurement is low. The dispatch layer got modernized; the supply chain didn't. The billing lag numbers confirm what that disconnect costs.

One in five mechanical service companies takes more than 15 days to bill after job completion. Only 24% close within 5 days, against an industry benchmark of six to eight days. And 34% aren't billing service agreements in advance, despite PM agreement retention rates above 93%.

That last figure deserves attention. Mechanical contractors are retaining their maintenance contracts at an exceptional rate, the clients are staying and the front-end relationship is solid, but more than one in three companies can't bill those same agreements in advance because back-office operations can't close the loop between what was promised and what was delivered. That's not an accounts receivable problem. That's a field-to-office disconnection problem.

The van stock channel nobody talks about

Electrical contractors running project work have a procurement challenge that's visible and named: field requisitions, PO workflow, delivery coordination, three-way matching. There's a category of software built around it, including Remarcable, and the problem has been described in detail.

HVAC and plumbing service companies have the same structural failure, but it looks different enough that the pattern stays invisible.

Service-company mechanical procurement runs on van stock. Every truck carries an inventory of common fittings, valves, compression couplings, and small components that get consumed across service calls daily. At the end of a shift or between calls, technicians need replenishment. That requisition doesn't travel through a structured PO system. It travels through text messages.

Purchasing re-stocks by estimating what each truck needs, cross-referencing against what was recently ordered, and making a call. No system tracks what each van actually used and depleted. The technician texted a description of the part, not a part number. The dispatcher interpreted the description, passed it along in shorthand, and purchasing translated it into whatever the supplier catalog showed. Construction industry data from FMI and US Glass Mag puts product data search time at 5.5 hours per worker per week, before accounting for the field-to-office translation layer that service companies add on top.

This is high-frequency, low-visibility procurement. Dozens of transactions per day, none of them going through any kind of formal channel.

The FSM software recorded the work order. The dispatch software scheduled the next call. But the supply chain underneath, the van stock that makes service calls possible, operated entirely outside the system.
‍

The labor math makes it worse

The 2025 MSCA Benchmark Survey doesn't just document operational dysfunction. It names the constraint that makes fixing it urgent: 52.5% of mechanical contractors rank labor shortage as their single biggest challenge.

When labor is the binding constraint, every hour consumed by procurement friction is an hour not available for billable work. Consider a technician spending time on a parts call that a connected system would route automatically. That time is already scarce in a market where skilled trades hiring difficulty runs at record levels and the skilled trades workforce is contracting structurally.

Remarcable customers in electrical contracting, a trade facing the same structural challenge, have seen field staff saving 4.9 hours per day and office staff saving 6.1 hours per day once procurement runs through a connected system instead of informal channels. Collins Electrical cut their field-to-purchasing time from two to three hours down to five to ten minutes, a reduction they achieved by replacing the phone-and-text requisition channel with field ordering without calling the office. That's electrical. The chaos it solved is the same one running through pipe and duct.

When labor is already short and every craftsman's hour is expensive, the returns on time recovery aren't incremental. They compound.
‍

Why FSM deployment doesn't close the gap

The 82% mobile deployment figure in the MSCA survey looks like evidence of operational maturity. It isn't, for two reasons.

First, half of mechanical contractors who have deployed a mobile FSM app haven't upgraded it in three years or more. Stale implementations create the same workarounds as no implementation at all. Technicians find the app too slow or too limited, revert to phone calls, and the informal channel reestablishes itself.

Second, FSM software is built around dispatch and billing, not supply chain. ServiceTitan manages work orders and scheduling. It handles invoicing. What it doesn't do is track van stock visibility across a fleet of trucks, give purchasing a real-time view of what each vehicle is carrying, or translate field slang into supplier SKUs. Some FSM platforms have added procurement or inventory add-ons, but these are dispatching-adjacent: they manage the pricebook and the invoice, not the actual procurement workflow from requisition to PO to receipt to three-way matching.

The gap between "we deployed FSM" and "our supply chain is connected" is exactly where mechanical contractor procurement chaos lives.
‍

The structural fix

The problem has a structural description: field, purchasing, and accounting functions operate with different information, communicate through informal channels, and close the loop days or weeks after the work is done. The proper fix is a connected system that carries information from the field requisition through to the supplier order and back into job costing, replacing the informal channel entirely.

For mechanical service companies, that means three things specifically.

Van stock visibility across trucks and warehouses means purchasing knows what each vehicle actually depleted before placing replenishment orders. Guessing van stock levels, the default in 68% of the industry, creates both overstock and stockouts. A system that tracks real-time depletion by vehicle removes the guesswork and lets purchasing order against actual consumption instead of estimates.

Secondly, a visual catalog with slang mapping lets technicians request parts by what they look like and what they're called on the job, rather than by manufacturer SKU. The 550,000+ product catalog in Remarcable includes the part-number translation layer built for contractors who think in trade language. When the requisition enters the system accurately the first time, the purchasing cycle that follows is faster and the materials delivered are correct.

Finally, the 20% billing lag and the 34% unbilled service agreement problem both trace back to field operations and the office being disconnected. When material consumption, labor, and delivery are reconciled in real time rather than days after the fact, the billing cycle compresses to match the work.

Collins Electrical's procurement team described their before-state plainly: "We were spending more time managing the procurement process than actually procuring materials." That's the same sentence a mechanical service company's purchasing manager would write. The field-to-purchasing time reduced from hours to minutes tells you what's possible when the system carries the load instead of the phones.
‍

The "why now" argument

Mechanical contractors running service agreements on 93%+ retention don't have a sales problem. They have an operational capacity problem: the service book is full, the clients are staying, and the constraint is back-office infrastructure that can't keep pace with the volume of work the front end is winning.

That constraint compounds with the labor shortage. When the market won't let you hire out of the friction, the systems have to carry the load. That's the forcing function: schedule compression and labor scarcity are the conditions a connected supply chain has to adapt to, not just an efficiency optimization or competitive benchmarking exercise.

The same procurement chaos that electrical contractors have been solving is now the central operational problem for mechanical service companies. The pipe and duct trade has been running on texts and phone calls for long enough that the informal channel feels like the system. It isn't.

See Remarcable for mechanical contractors to see how the supply chain connects, from van stock to final invoice.

‍