SWPPP and erosion control
SWPPP and erosion control sits 1st of 11 in civil and earthwork on net profit, and carries leaner overhead than the 48-trade average. Here is every figure, across all 7 revenue bands.
SWPPP and erosion control by revenue band
| Metric | $1M–$5M | $5M–$10M | $10M–$25M | $25M–$50M | $50M–$100M | $100M–$500M | $500M+ | CFOS target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overhead | 14% | 13% | 12% | 11% | 10% | 9% | 8% | 13% |
| Gross margin | 24% | 26% | 27% | 29% | 30% | 32% | 34% | 24% |
| Net profit | 10% | 13% | 15% | 18% | 20% | 23% | 26% | 11% |
- 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.
5 problems specific to swppp and erosion control
The last pay app went out a year ago and the job is still spending money. It rains Tuesday night, the crew is out fixing fence Wednesday morning, and there's no pay item anywhere for that truck. Grading ran long, the fall window closed, and now you're carrying temporary cover and inspections all winter waiting on spring to seed. The GC wants fence in Monday, the NOI is still sitting at the agency, and your crew has already been scheduled and released twice.
Each one below points at the item, the unit, the clock, or the party that makes it a swppp and erosion control problem, and it says which step fixes it.
SWPPP and erosion control against the other 47 trades
| Metric | SWPPP and erosion control | Civil and earthwork average | All 48 average | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overhead | 14% | 15% | 15.1% | 6th of 48 |
| Gross margin | 24% | 20.7% | 22.1% | 8th of 48 |
| Net profit | 10% | 5.7% | 7% | 1st of 48 |
SWPPP and erosion control sheds 6 points of overhead between $1M–$5M and $500M+, against 6.2 for civil and earthwork as a group. Inside that group, SWPPP and erosion control keeps the most at 10% and Civil runs the leanest overhead at 14%. That's this trade.
Other civil and earthwork trades
What owners ask
What overhead should an swppp and erosion control contractor run?
SWPPP and erosion control shares its overhead figure with 10 other trades at this revenue, which is what the published data resolves to. It runs 14% at $1M–$5M and 8% at $500M+, as a percentage of revenue. That sits 1 point below the civil and earthwork average of 15%. The CFOS target at $1M–$5M is 13%. The CFOS target is one point leaner than your trade's average at your revenue.
What gross margin should an swppp and erosion control contractor run?
SWPPP and erosion control 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 34% at $500M+, as a percentage of revenue. That sits 3.3 points above the civil and earthwork average of 20.7%. The CFOS target at $1M–$5M is 24%. 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 an swppp and erosion control contractor run?
SWPPP and erosion control runs 10% at $1M–$5M, before taxes, as a percentage of revenue, which ranks 1st of 48 and puts it in the top of the table. By $500M+ it reaches 26%. That sits 4.3 points above the civil and earthwork average of 5.7%. The CFOS target at $1M–$5M is 11%. The CFOS target is published at $1M to $5M.
Does swppp and erosion control get more profitable as it grows?
Overhead is the number that moves. SWPPP and erosion control sheds 6 points between $1M–$5M and $500M+, which is in line with the 6.2 points civil and earthwork 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 swppp and erosion control sit against the other trades?
SWPPP and erosion control is 1st of 11 in civil and earthwork on net profit. It keeps the most in the group. Civil runs the leanest overhead at 14%. Gross margin ranks 6th of 48 and overhead ranks 1st.
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.