Ibex Spend Intelligence
Ibex Spend IntelligenceSpend & inventory benchmarking
Get a spend review
Home  /  Case Studies
Worked scenarios

The method, worked.

Three engagement scenarios showing exactly how the analysis runs, what it surfaces, and what the numbers look like — each modeled rigorously from public data, so you can see the mechanics before sharing a single invoice.

About these scenarios. The engagements below are illustrative worked examples, modeled entirely from published data (NAHB Cost of Construction Survey 2024, BLS Producer Price Index as analyzed by ABC, CNBA buying-group benchmarks, U.S. Census Bureau, ISM and EIA series). They are not anonymized client results. Modeling inputs are shown in each scenario so every figure can be traced to its source. As engagements complete, documented results will replace these examples.

The $25M Commercial GC: Finding the First Million

Construction · Spend Audit

The Situation

A commercial general contractor running $25M in annual construction volume across Middle Tennessee. Procurement is handled project-by-project by PMs; suppliers were inherited, not selected. No category has been competitively bid in over two years. Ownership suspects margin leakage but has no visibility into where.

The Analysis

Applying NAHB's published stage-cost shares to $25M of volume concentrates the spend: interior finishes $5.43M (21.7%), MEP rough-ins $4.80M (19.2%), framing $4.15M (16.6%). Three categories carry over half the spend. Against the 2025–2026 PPI record, framing and MEP absorbed the steepest input increases — framing lumber +23.5% year over year and copper wire +22% — both typically passed through at list to buyers without contract protection.

The Outcome (Modeled)

At the documented construction buying-group savings range of 5–7% (CNBA, 2026) applied to the ~60% of spend that is sourcing-eligible ($15M), the recoverable annual figure is $750,000 to $1.05M. The audit's role is to convert that range into a category-specific, prioritized plan: which suppliers to bid, which contracts to restructure, and in what order.

Annual volume$25.0M
Sourcing-eligible (~60%)$15.0M
Top-3 category concentration57.5%
Modeled recovery @5%$750K
Modeled recovery @7%$1.05M
Audit timeline30–45 days
Modeling inputs: NAHB Cost of Constructing a Home 2024 (stage shares); CNBA construction buying-group savings range, 2026; ABC analyses of BLS PPI (framing lumber, copper wire), 2025–2026. Addressable-spend assumption (~60%) reflects sourcing-eligible materials, equipment, and indirect categories.

The Electrical Renewal: Negotiating With the Data

Real Estate · Negotiation Intelligence

The Situation

A multifamily developer faces a contract renewal with its electrical distributor after a year in which copper wire and cable rose more than 22% (ABC/BLS, through Dec. 2025). The distributor's proposed renewal passes the full increase through, plus escalation. The developer's team has the relationship — but no market data to push back with.

The Analysis

The negotiation file: PPI movement for the affected commodity codes establishes how much of the increase is market versus margin. Distributor alternatives with published program pricing establish the competitive floor. Volume consolidation across the developer's pipeline establishes the leverage. The playbook sets a target — accept documented commodity pass-through, reject the discretionary escalator, trade a longer term for tier pricing.

The Outcome (Modeled)

On a $1.2M annual electrical category (a typical share for multifamily MEP), the difference between full pass-through-plus-escalation and a negotiated structure at documented market movement typically lands in the 4–8% range of category spend — $48K to $96K annually, before any volume-tier benefit. The developer's team conducts the negotiation; the intelligence file is what changes the outcome.

Category spend (electrical)$1.2M
Copper wire 12-mo PPI move+22%
Modeled negotiation delta4–8%
Modeled annual value$48–96K
Engagement timeline2–4 weeks
Who negotiatesClient team
Modeling inputs: ABC analysis of BLS PPI, copper wire & cable, through Dec. 2025; category share consistent with NAHB MEP rough-in stage data; negotiation-delta range reflects the spread between full pass-through-plus-escalator terms and documented-commodity-movement terms on a like-for-like basis.

The PE Portfolio: One Engagement, Four Companies, Three Verticals

Multi-Vertical · Portfolio Engagement

The Situation

A lower-middle-market PE fund holds four Sunbelt asset-intensive portfolio companies — two construction firms, a facilities-services operator, and a building-products manufacturer — totaling $90M in combined addressable spend. Each company buys independently. The operating partner needs near-term, measurable value creation that doesn't depend on top-line growth.

The Analysis

A portfolio-level audit maps spend across all four companies onto a common category taxonomy, then benchmarks the combined book against each vertical's indices — BLS PPI and NAHB for the builders, BLS Employment Cost Index for facilities, ISM and commodity indices for the manufacturer. Two effects compound: each company's individual overpayment versus market, and the unexploited volume of buying overlapping categories four times.

The Outcome (Modeled)

At the documented 5–7% range on the portfolio's ~$54M of sourcing-eligible spend, modeled recovery is $2.7M to $3.8M annually across the holding period — EBITDA improvement that flows directly to exit multiples. The quarterly savings report gives the fund a documented value-creation line item for the next LP letter. One methodology, four companies, three verticals — all benchmarked together.

Portfolio companies4
Verticals covered3
Sourcing-eligible (~60%)$54M
Modeled recovery @5%$2.7M
Modeled recovery @7%$3.8M
Reporting cadenceQuarterly
Modeling inputs: CNBA construction buying-group savings range, 2026; BLS Employment Cost Index and ISM/commodity indices for non-construction verticals; addressable-spend assumption (~60%); volume-aggregation effect consistent with published GPO program structures. EBITDA flow-through assumes savings on sourcing-eligible spend net of program costs.

Run this analysis on your numbers

These scenarios use market averages. Your audit replaces them with your actual spend and a quantified, prioritized plan.

Request a no-cost spend review Independent · Documented · No obligation