The Real Cost of Cheap

The number appeared reasonable at first.

The quote from the other contractor came in 18% below Umoba's estimate for the same earthworks project. To the procurement team reviewing the bids, the choice seemed straightforward. Same scope, similar timeline, significantly lower price.

The project was awarded. Work began. And within six weeks, the client was calling Umoba.

What looked like savings on paper had become something else entirely in the field. Equipment breakdowns. Missed deadlines. Rework. And the mounting realisation that the initial price reflected neither the complexity of the conditions nor the cost of doing the work properly.

By the time Umoba stepped in to complete the work, the total expenditure exceeded what the original estimate would have been by nearly 30%.

This pattern plays out more often than most clients realise. The lowest bid wins the contract. The lowest bid also frequently costs the most.

There are contractors who deliberately underbid to secure work, planning to recover margins through change orders or cost-cutting during execution. But more common are those who simply miscalculate.

They underestimate the wear that Lowveld conditions place on equipment. They assume access will be easier than it is. They budget for ideal weather rather than what the season typically brings. They don't account for the time lost transporting broken machinery back to distant workshops, or the cost of expedited parts when standard supply chains fail.

In some cases, the contractor lacks the experience to price the work accurately. In others, they're operating on thin margins and hope to make up shortfalls on volume. Either way, the result is the same: a bid that reflects optimism rather than reality.

The true cost of cheap contracting reveals itself in stages.

First come the delays. Equipment that should have been serviced isn't. Parts that should have been stocked aren't available. The crew that was supposed to arrive doesn't, or arrives undertrained. Each delay compounds, pushing work into less favourable conditions or creating bottlenecks elsewhere in the project.

Then comes the quality. Earthworks that aren't compacted to specification. Drainage that doesn't account for seasonal water flow. Infrastructure laid without proper site preparation. The work may pass a cursory inspection, but it won't hold up over time.

Rework follows. Sometimes immediately, when defects are caught before handover. More often months later, when the client discovers that what was delivered isn't performing as intended. By then, the contractor may be difficult to reach, or the warranty terms vague enough to avoid responsibility.

The largest cost, though, is often invisible: the productivity lost while problems are addressed. Other trades waiting. Timelines slipping. Stakeholders losing confidence. The cascading effect of work done poorly touches far more than the immediate task.

When Umoba prices a project, the estimate accounts for realities that are easy to overlook on paper but expensive to ignore in practice.

It includes the cost of maintaining equipment that can operate reliably under local conditions. It factors in the time required to position mobile workshops near active sites, minimising downtime when repairs are needed. It accounts for the technicians who can diagnose problems quickly and the parts inventory that allows fixes to happen without waiting on suppliers.

It reflects the experience of operators who understand the terrain, the supervisors who can adjust plans as conditions change, and the planning that ensures work happens in the right sequence rather than simply the fastest sequence.

It also includes margins sufficient to absorb the unexpected without compromising quality or safety. Because the unexpected always arrives.

None of this is glamorous. It doesn't reduce the quoted price. But it does reduce the likelihood that the project will cost more than planned, take longer than scheduled, or deliver less than required.

Procurement processes often emphasise price above all else. The lowest bid wins because it's measurable, defensible and easy to explain. Value is harder to quantify.

But clients who have worked through projects that exceeded budget and timeline because of contractor shortfalls tend to ask different questions the next time. They want to know about equipment maintenance schedules. They ask about operator experience and backup plans for breakdowns. They inquire about how the contractor has handled similar conditions elsewhere.

They're no longer shopping purely on price. They're evaluating the likelihood that the work will be completed as promised.

Umoba doesn't always submit the lowest bid. But it consistently completes projects on time, to specification and without the cost overruns that plague cheaper alternatives. Over the course of a project, that difference compounds in the client's favour.

The earthworks project that prompted the client to call Umoba mid-stream wasn't completed cheaply in the end. It was completed expensively and late, after being started by someone who promised otherwise.

The client learned what many eventually do: that the lowest price and the lowest cost are rarely the same thing. The lowest price is what you pay at signing. The lowest cost is what you pay by completion.

Cheap contracting saves money only if nothing goes wrong. In the Lowveld, nothing going wrong is an optimistic assumption.

Umoba prices work based on what it will actually take to complete it properly. That's not always the number clients want to hear. But it is, more often than not, the number they're glad they paid.