Process piping
Process piping sits 5th of 7 in mechanical and life safety on net profit, and carries leaner overhead than the 48-trade average. Here is every figure, across all 7 revenue bands.
Process piping by revenue band
| Metric | $1M–$5M | $5M–$10M | $10M–$25M | $25M–$50M | $50M–$100M | $100M–$500M | $500M+ | CFOS target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overhead | 16% | 15% | 14% | 13% | 12% | 11% | 10% | 15% |
| Gross margin | 24% | 25% | 26% | 27% | 29% | 30% | 32% | 25% |
| Net profit | 8% | 10% | 12% | 14% | 17% | 19% | 22% | 10% |
- 2024 Construction Financial Benchmarker, Executive Summary, Construction Financial Management Association, 2024. The survey puts gross profit margin at 21.8%, SG&A at 11.8%, and net income before taxes at 6.3% across all respondents. The best-in-class top quartile reaches 11.9% net income before taxes. Those figures are the whole-population reading, so a single trade can sit well either side of them.
- 2025 Performance Benchmarks, Construction Companies, Jones Maresca and Company, 2025. This study reports specialty contractor gross margin between 15% and 25%. It puts net profit at 5% to 8% for a well managed company, and total indirect cost between 8% and 15%. The indirect cost band is the one worth reading twice, because it's the number most owners have never calculated for their own shop.
- SPM Trade Benchmark Reference, Sulphur Prairie Operations LLC, 2026. The reference holds 48 trades, and net profit in it is stated before taxes. It publishes here as 47 trade pages, because landscaping and irrigation share an identical benchmark profile and are one market, so they're presented together. Everything else carries its own row.
How these figures were built. Gross margin and overhead come from CFMA's 2024 and 2025 financial survey data, plus a January 2026 specialty trade study. Net profit comes from a 48 trade master dataset that covers 24 served trades and 24 adjacent trades. The reference holds 48 trades and the site publishes 47 pages, because landscaping and irrigation carry the same figures and are the same market. Where the survey and the master disagree on net profit, the master carries it. Benchmarks are reviewed against each new CFMA survey release and reconciled before publication.
6 problems specific to process piping
Pipe is on the ground, welders are on the clock, and 200 spools can't be cut because one valve vendor hasn't released a certified dimensional print. You wrote checks for PQRs, third-party lab tests, and welder requalifications weeks before a single joint was billable, and none of it got tagged to the job that caused it. The system holds pressure, the crew is long gone, and the final application sits because one fitting's MTR never made it into the turnover package. You bid 316L in March, bought it in July, and the escalation answer came back pointing at a carbon steel index that never budged.
Each one below points at the item, the unit, the clock, or the party that makes it a process piping problem, and it says which step fixes it.
Process piping against the other 47 trades
| Metric | Process piping | Mechanical and life safety average | All 48 average | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overhead | 16% | 16.1% | 15.1% | 31st of 48 |
| Gross margin | 24% | 24.6% | 22.1% | 8th of 48 |
| Net profit | 8% | 8.4% | 7% | 8th of 48 |
Process piping sheds 6 points of overhead between $1M–$5M and $500M+, against 6.3 for mechanical and life safety as a group. Inside that group, Mechanical keeps the most at 9% and Fire protection runs the leanest overhead at 15%. Process piping is neither, which is the usual position and the one with the most room in it.
Other mechanical and life safety trades
What owners ask
What overhead should a process piping contractor run?
Process piping shares its overhead figure with 12 other trades at this revenue, which is what the published data resolves to. It runs 16% at $1M–$5M and 10% at $500M+, as a percentage of revenue. That sits 0.1 points below the mechanical and life safety average of 16.1%. The CFOS target at $1M–$5M is 15%. The CFOS target is one point leaner than your trade's average at your revenue.
What gross margin should a process piping contractor run?
Process piping shares its gross margin figure with 4 other trades at this revenue, which is what the published data resolves to. It runs 24% at $1M–$5M and 32% at $500M+, as a percentage of revenue. That sits 0.6 points below the mechanical and life safety average of 24.6%. The CFOS target at $1M–$5M is 25%. The CFOS target is published at $1M to $5M. It's set at whatever gross margin produces the net profit target once overhead is paid, and never below your trade's own average.
What net profit should a process piping contractor run?
Process piping shares its net profit figure with 12 other trades at this revenue, which is what the published data resolves to. It runs 8% at $1M–$5M and 22% at $500M+, before taxes, as a percentage of revenue. That sits 0.4 points below the mechanical and life safety average of 8.4%. The CFOS target at $1M–$5M is 10%. The CFOS target is published at $1M to $5M.
Does process piping get more profitable as it grows?
Overhead is the number that moves. Process piping sheds 6 points between $1M–$5M and $500M+, which is in line with the 6.3 points mechanical and life safety sheds as a group. Net profit is already above the 48-trade average, so the room is in holding it while revenue climbs.
Where does process piping sit against the other trades?
Process piping is 5th of 7 in mechanical and life safety on net profit. Mechanical keeps the most at 9%. Fire protection runs the leanest overhead at 15%. Gross margin ranks 31st of 48 and overhead ranks 8th.
Josh Luebker ran commercial construction projects before he ran the numbers behind them, on data centres, military bases, hospitals, and high-rises. He wrote CONTROL: The Construction Financial Operating System, which is an eight-step framework for commercial subcontractors, and it publishes on October 1, 2026. He is a master electrician who moved into the office and kept the field vocabulary.
Sulphur Prairie Operations LLC maintains the benchmark reference behind these figures. Every edition is reconciled against the newest CFMA survey release before it publishes here. Where a figure changes between editions, the older edition keeps its year in the title so a citation to it stays correct.