Are you getting the “most value” from your painting dollar?
If you find this question difficult to answer you are not alone. In fact, many people involved in painting really do not know how much they are spending annually on painting or what it is costing them to forgo protecting their investment.
The only meaningful way to determine if you are getting the "most value" for your painting dollar is to evaluate if the painting system you selected is providing the Lowest Applied Cost Per Square Foot Per Year. In simple terms, "you can paint properly now, or pay a lot more later."
Every year industry spends billions of dollars replacing steel rather than protecting their investment. With today’s cost of steel replacement it is not hard to see how easy it is to reach this astronomical level of spending. Not painting not only costs money in the long run, but in the interim may cause the following:
- Personal safety may be jeopardized.
- Equipment failure may result in unnecessary downtime.
- Product contamination may occur.
- Community image may be tarnished.
With this said, let’s move forward to discuss how you can determine if your current coating system is providing you with the lowest applied cost per square foot per year. As an example, let’s use the following situation: "Suppose that you are presently using a 3-coat system of alkyd primer and two coats of single package polyurethane finish. This is being used in a very corrosive environment and you are receiving a three-year service life. You are in the process of evaluating a 3-coat system of urethane primer and two coats of two-component urethane finish. This system is expected to last six years in the same environment. The question you face is which system will provide you with the lowest applied cost per square foot per year."
I. Develop Applied Costs/Square Foot:
| |
System A -- Alkyd Polyurethane System |
System B -- Total Urethane System |
| A. Surface Preparation |
SSPC-SP-6 Commercial Blast |
SSPC-SP-6 Commercial Blast |
| Labor, Equipment & Abrasive Cost |
$.50 |
$.50 |
| |
|
|
| B. Prime* |
Alkyd Primer 04-022-PP |
Urethane Primer 07-440 |
| Labor Cost |
$.15 |
$.15 |
| Materials Cost |
$.05 |
$.06 |
| |
|
|
| C. Intermediate* |
Polyurethane |
Two Component Polyurethane
Enamel -- IMRON D326 |
| Labor Cost |
$.15 |
$.20 |
| Materials Cost |
$.05 |
$.13 |
| |
|
|
| D. Finish Coat* |
Polyurethane Enamel 04-400 |
Two Component Polyurethane
Enamel IMRON D326 |
| Labor Cost |
$.15 |
$.20 |
| Materials Cost |
$.05 |
$.13 |
| |
|
|
| Total Applied Cost |
|
|
| A+B+C+D |
$1.10 |
$1.37 |
II. Develop Applied Cost/Square Foot/Year:
| A. Life Expectancy |
3 years |
6 years |
| B. Total Applied Cost |
$1.10 |
$1.37 |
| C. Applied Cost Per Square Foot Per Year |
$.366 |
$.228 |
*Materials cost figured on wet film thickness of 1.5 mils per coat using theoretical coverage per gallon.
Conclusion
You can readily conclude from the economic analysis above that System B is the clear choice ($.228 vs. $.366) despite the fact that System B’s material cost was nearly double that of System A. The fact that painting is labor intensive negates the initial difference in material costs.
In addition to selecting the proper coating system, timing is critical to minimizing painting costs. The most economical time to paint is when expensive surface preparation, rigging and priming can be kept to a minimum. We have found through years of experience and economic analysis that the most economical time to paint is when a surface requires approximately 15% bare metal surface preparation prior to painting. About the only exception to this rule of thumb would occur when the surface deterioration is so bad it endangers personnel, equipment, or the quality of the product itself.
“Proper Selection and Timing Add Up to Great Economic Savings!”
