Lumber Yard Contractor Card Accounts: A Sample Scenario
A three-location lumber and building materials supplier was paying non-qualified interchange on the contractor card volume that made up most of its counter business.
- Client
- Hollis & Board Building Supply
- Client type
- Multi-location lumber and building materials supplier
- Company size
- 60–120 employees
- Locations
- 3 yards
- Processing volume
- $3.2M / month
Executive summary
This is a hypothetical example created to illustrate how this service could work for a business with these needs. It is not a description of an actual client engagement. The company is invented and every figure below is an illustrative assumption, not a measured result. Assume the following scenario. Hollis & Board runs three yards selling to contractors on trade accounts, with a large share of counter business paid on business and purchasing cards. Gross margin on commodity lumber is thin enough that interchange is a visible share of profit, and none of the three yards was sending line-item data. Two of the three were also on different processors inherited from acquisitions, with effective rates 40 basis points apart for identical work.
One pricing structure across all three yards.
Freight carried on the transaction, satisfying a required Level 3 field.
Commercial card qualification reported per yard.
Month-end consolidation would drop from two portals to one.
Client profile
- Industry
- Lumber and building materials
- Locations
- Three yards across one metro
- Monthly volume
- $3.2 million
- Average ticket
- $2,140
- Payment mix
- 54% commercial card, 33% trade ACH, 13% check
The challenge
Commercial card volume downgrading across all three yards, with inconsistent pricing between branches.
- Effective rate ranged from 2.44% to 2.86% between yards doing near-identical business.
- Delivery billed separately, so freight never appeared in the transaction data.
- Counter staff could not see whether a card was commercial or consumer at the point of sale.
- Month-end required pulling statements from two portals and reconciling by hand.
Why the previous setup was failing
- • Two processors across three yards, inherited through an acquisition.
- • Counter terminals not connected to the ERP.
- • Freight and delivery billed on a separate ticket from materials.
- • No consolidated reporting across yards.
- • Counter terminals were not integrated, so no line-item data could be sent.
- • Acquired yards kept legacy processors instead of joining a group structure.
- • Separate delivery tickets removed a required Level 3 field from the transaction.
- • Nobody owned payments across the group.
Our assessment
- Statements from both processors normalized to one baseline.
- Downgrade analysis by yard and by card type.
- Review of how delivery and freight were billed against materials.
- Comparison of counter workflow across the three yards.
The recommended solution
- Consolidate all three yards onto one processor and one pricing structure.
- Integrate counter payment with the ERP so invoices carry line-item data.
- Bill freight on the materials invoice rather than a separate ticket.
- Report qualification by yard so drift is visible early.
Implementation Process
- 1
Week 1 — Statement review
Three months of statements plus a sample invoice, normalized to a single interchange-plus baseline so every line is comparable.
- 2
Week 2 — Downgrade analysis
Transaction-level review identifying which card types downgraded and which required data fields were missing.
- 3
Weeks 3–4 — Connector and field mapping
Payment connector installed against the existing ERP; invoice fields mapped to the Level 2 and Level 3 requirements.
- 4
Week 5 — Test transactions
Live test transactions confirmed qualification per card type before any production volume moved.
- 5
Week 6 — Cutover
Cutover between billing cycles, with the previous setup kept available for rollback for one full cycle.
- 6
Weeks 7–10 — Verification
First full month compared against projection; qualification reported by card type and customer.
Technology and integrations
Integration changes
- • Counter terminals connected to the building-supply ERP.
- • Line items, freight and tax mapped to Level 3 fields.
- • Customer reference and PO carried from the trade account.
- • Consolidated settlement reporting across all three yards.
Processing changes
- • Three yards, two processors and two pricing models consolidated to one.
- • Interchange-plus across the group.
- • Qualification monitored monthly by location.
Obstacles and resolutions
Separate delivery tickets were embedded in twenty years of counter habit.
Freight would be added as a line on the materials invoice, satisfying Level 3 without changing what the customer pays.
One yard's staff resisted losing a familiar terminal.
The integrated flow would be piloted at one yard first, with the terminal kept available for a full cycle as a fallback.
Trade account customers had PO requirements that varied by customer.
The PO field would be made required on trade accounts that specify one, and optional elsewhere.
Measurable results
Illustrative only — modeled at 55 to 95 basis points on qualifying commercial card volume, with the widest gain at the yard that had been on the worst legacy tiered pricing.
Operational improvements
- • Counter staff take payment against the invoice rather than re-keying into a terminal.
- • Delivery and materials reconcile as one document.
- • One statement instead of two.
Reporting improvements
- • Per-yard effective rate and qualification rate.
- • Group-level roll-up for the controller.
- • Cost to collect split by trade account versus cash account.
Funding improvements
- • Single settlement account across three yards.
- • Deposit timing consistent between locations for the first time.
Customer experience improvements
- • Contractors see one invoice covering materials and delivery.
- • Trade account PO requirements enforced at the counter rather than corrected later.
Before and after
| Measure | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Processors | Two, across three yards | One |
| Effective rate spread between yards | 42 basis points | Within 5 basis points |
| Freight on the transaction | Billed on a separate ticket | Line item on the materials invoice |
| Month-end | Two portals, manual | One consolidated report |
Related services
Line-by-line statement work that removes real cost — not marketing math.
Learn moreOne payments architecture across every location, without silos.
Learn moreA written, line-by-line analysis of what you actually pay for.
Learn moreRelated integrations
Related industries
Frequently asked questions
Are these results guaranteed?+
No. This engagement is demonstration content built on realistic scenarios. Actual outcomes depend on your volume, mix, software, and current pricing — which is exactly what a review establishes.
How long did the Hollis & Board Building Supply engagement take?+
The implementation ran across 6 phases; most comparable environments cut over in 7 to 14 business days once scope is agreed.
Do we have to change software to see similar results?+
Usually not. Most of this work happens in merchant structure, pricing, data capture, and integration configuration around software you already run.
Can we see a version of this analysis for our business?+
Yes. A payment review returns the same structure — assessment, recommendation, projected impact — against your own statements.
Want this analysis for your business?
Send us your current setup and we'll return a written assessment covering cost, integrations, reporting, and funding.
Related solutions and references
The pages that explain the payment methods, integrations and account structure behind this engagement.
Ready to see what your setup could look like?
Book a working session focused on work like the Hollis & Board Building Supply example. Clear recommendations, no obligation.
- • 150+ software platforms reviewed
- • 1,500+ merchant environments evaluated
- • Under 24-hour average response time
- • 7–14 business day onboarding