When CAPEX is tight, every line item matters.
This case study documents how we (Yansourcing) supported a 128-unit, mid-rise residential project on the U.S. West Coast and achieved 30.4% overall CAPEX savings on targeted building materials — without slipping schedule or compromising compliance.
Disclosure: we performed the sourcing, quality control, and logistics described here.
Project at a glance
- Scope: Porcelain tiles; kitchen cabinets; bathroom vanities & basins; interior doors; lighting (linear + downlights); aluminum windows (thermally broken, double-glazed)
- Volume: 6×40HQ containers; ~172 SKUs across 6 categories; consolidated in South China
- Incoterms model: FOB for ex-factory price control + DDP for transparent landed cost to jobsite
- Lead time: Planned 120 days; actual 107 days (13 days early)
- QC regime: PPI → DUPRO at 35% & 70% → PSI; special tests for cabinets and tiles
- Compliance: ANSI A326.3 (tiles); CARB Phase 2/TSCA Title VI (cabinets); ETL/CE (lighting per market); ASTM E283/E330/E331 (windows)
- Logistics: Consolidation at Foshan + Zhongshan; mixed-SKU palletization; moisture-indicator logs + GPS tracking; final DDP delivery to site
Methodology and boundaries
To keep this analysis auditable:
- Baselines are the developer’s verified local supplier quotes, matched to the same specifications and quantities.
- “China landed cost” reflects DDP pricing to the project site, including origin fees, ocean freight, duties/taxes, customs clearance, last-mile delivery, and reasonable packaging/handling assumptions.
- We combined FOB at the factory for price control with DDP to the site for full visibility on final cost and risk allocation. For responsibilities and risk transfer definitions, see the U.S. Department of Commerce’s summary in Know Your Incoterms: Trade.gov explainer on Incoterms responsibilities.
- Duty assumptions and freight were locked per sailing week used; if market freight had spiked materially, we would rerun the model and note variance.
Cost results (local vs China landed)
Overall CAPEX saved on the scoped materials: 30.4%
| Category | Local Supplier Quote | China Landed Cost (DDP) | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tiles | $11.50/sqft | $6.10/sqft | 47% |
| Kitchen Cabinets | $7,200/unit | $4,150/unit | 42% |
| Interior Doors | $480/door | $295/door | 38% |
| Lighting | — | 32% overall saving | — |
Notes:
- Categories not shown in the table (e.g., vanities, basins, windows) contributed to the net 30.4% saving but have confidential line-item pricing; those figures are available upon NDA.
- The lighting line varies by fixture type; the 32% saving shown is a mix across custom linear runs and downlights.
Schedule and logistics performance
The project executed in 107 days door-to-door, 13 days ahead of the 120-day plan. How was that achieved?
- Consolidation near production clusters (Foshan for ceramics/cabinetry; Zhongshan for lighting), enabling efficient FCL builds and reduced partial loads.
- Mixed-SKU palletization and area-based labeling to cut unloading and staging time at the jobsite.
- DDP routing to the site ensured a single chain of custody and predictable customs clearance.
- Each container included humidity indicator cards and GPS/data logging to document conditions and location throughout transit; this helps resolve exception handling quickly. See a manufacturer’s primer on humidity indicator cards: Clariant’s overview of HICs and usage.
Quality control and defect reduction
We followed a staged quality program calibrated to construction deliverables:
- PPI (Pre-Production Inspection): verified raw panels, tile lots, hardware kits, finishes, and jigs before mass production.
- DUPRO checks at 35% and 70%: caught fit/finish deviations early (e.g., hinge alignment, veneer seam continuity, tile shade variation) while corrections were still inexpensive.
- PSI (Pre-Shipment Inspection): validated labeling, packaging, AQL sampling, carton drop/stacking tests, and export marks.
Result: defect rate dropped from 5.8% (prior supplier setup) to 1.4% under this regime, reducing rework and schedule risk.
For a primer on common inspection stages and timing, see this guide to pre-shipment inspection and related checkpoints: QIMA’s overview of inspection workflows.
Special tests executed in this project:
- Cabinets: full carton-drop test (edge/corner/face) and moisture checks on arrival at the consolidation hub.
- Tiles: batch sampling and shade/size verification against production retains (referencing ISO 10545 methods for dimensional and appearance checks in factory QA).
Compliance you can build on
- Tiles: Wet slip performance was considered using the ANSI A326.3 DCOF method and product use categories (e.g., interior level spaces walked on when wet are often evaluated around 0.42 DCOF when tested per A326.3). For context on the method and categories, see the ANSI/NFSI discussion of wet DCOF measurement: ANSI/NFSI overview of A326.3 wet DCOF.
- Cabinetry: Composite wood components were specified to meet CARB Phase 2 / U.S. EPA TSCA Title VI formaldehyde emission limits with third-party certification and required labeling/recordkeeping. For official guidance, see the EPA program page: EPA overview of TSCA Title VI wood product requirements.
- Lighting: North American deliveries used ETL-listed fixtures to applicable UL/CSA safety standards; EU-bound units (if specified) were CE-marked per relevant directives. Intertek explains the ETL listing mark here: Intertek’s ETL listing program overview.
- Windows: Factory performance for air leakage, structural load, and water penetration was validated against ASTM E283, E330, and E331 methodologies via accredited labs. For scope and testing context, see the ICC-ES fenestration testing summary: ICC-ES summary of ASTM E283/E330/E331 testing.
Why does this matter?
On multi-family projects, deviations from emissions, slip resistance, or fenestration performance can trigger costly rework and occupancy delays.
Documented compliance turns into real schedule insurance.
Risks we anticipated—and how they were managed
- Tile shade variation: We required factory retention samples and photographed each lot during DUPRO, comparing to lab retains; suspect lots were isolated and re-fired before PSI. That avoided on-site patchwork color variation.
- Cabinet alignment and hardware feel: Early-run carcasses sometimes show hinge cup drift and drawer racking; our 35% DUPRO added a jig verification and soft-close cycle test. The fix prevented door swell issues surfacing only at install.
- Window structural and water performance: We verified section drawings, corner keys, and sealant specs before ordering, then sent representative units to an accredited lab for ASTM E283/E330/E331 verification. Factory QA was aligned to the tested configuration to avoid inadvertent design drift.
- Customs and last-mile congestion: DDP planning flagged a holiday-adjacent arrival. We advanced sailing one week and reserved drayage in advance, protecting the install milestone.
Parity note on alternatives
There are other reputable sourcing and QC firms that serve developers and contractors.
On equal criteria—landed cost transparency, QC regimen, compliance stewardship, schedule reliability, logistics execution, and reporting—publicly available documentation varies.
Where peers publish detailed, project-level evidence (e.g., line-item cost tables, inspection logs, lab certificates), evaluation is straightforward.
Where such evidence is not publicly available, comparisons result in “insufficient public data.”
The intent here is not to disparage competitors but to set a transparent bar for decision-quality information.
What this means for developers
- CAPEX: The 30.4% saving here came from large categories (tiles, cabinets, doors, lighting) with consistent specifications and predictable manufacturing. Similar categories on your project can be modeled quickly against your BOQ.
- Cash flow: The FOB + DDP split provides factory price control with a single landed cost number to plan against—helpful when draws and lender approvals depend on clear, end-to-end visibility.
- Predictability: Staged QC and documented compliance compress rework risk. Logistics proofs (consolidation planning, moisture/GPS logs) help keep install schedules intact.
What do we need from you to run a fast model?
A current BOM/BOQ, drawings, finish schedules, any alternates, installation timelines, and your target budget bands.
Give us those, and we’ll return a side-by-side cost and supply-chain feasibility analysis—flagging where compliance or lead-time constraints would require adjustments.
Ready to see your numbers? Upload your BOM to get a side-by-side savings and supply-chain feasibility analysis tailored to your project.
