B2BPay Hub
Steel & Metal Service CentersDemo Case Study

Metal Service Center High-Ticket Acceptance: A Sample Scenario

A metal service center found the answer was not a better card rate but routing its largest invoices to a different rail entirely.

Level 3 OptimizationCost ReductionAR AutomationERPAccounting
Client
Brant Metals
Client type
Steel and aluminum service center
Company size
75–150 employees
Locations
2 service centers
Processing volume
$9.7M / month
Average savings opportunity identified: 18%7–14 day onboardingUnder 24-hour support responseDemo proof points — verify before final launch.

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. Brant invoices in amounts that broke default processing limits, on commodity margins that could not absorb non-qualified interchange. The work was as much about routing the largest invoices to ACH as it was about optimizing the card volume that remained.

  • Line-item data reaching the networks on every commercial card transaction.

  • Qualification reported monthly.

  • AR out of the standalone terminal.

Client profile

Industry
Steel & Metal Service Centers
Locations
2 service centers
Monthly volume
$9.7M / month
Average ticket
$84,000
Software used
ERPAccounting suiteStandalone gateway

The challenge

Six-figure invoices exceeding caps, on margins that cannot absorb a downgrade.

  • Commercial card volume downgrading to non-qualified.
  • Required Level 3 fields absent from the transaction record.
  • No visibility into cost to collect by customer.

Why the previous setup was failing

Previous setup
  • • Payments keyed into a standalone virtual terminal.
  • • Tiered pricing obscuring qualification.
  • • No line-item data reaching the card networks.
Why it failed
  • • A virtual terminal cannot transmit Level 3 line-item data.
  • • Tiered pricing hid downgrades inside a qualification bucket.
  • • No single owner was accountable for payment cost.

Our assessment

  • Twelve months of statements normalized to one baseline.
  • Transaction-level downgrade analysis by card type.
  • Field mapping of ERP data against Level 3 requirements.

The recommended solution

  • Move to interchange-plus so qualification is visible.
  • Integrate payments with the ERP.
  • Monitor qualification monthly.

Implementation Process

  1. 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. 2

    Week 2 — Downgrade analysis

    Transaction-level review identifying which card types downgraded and which required data fields were missing.

  3. 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. 4

    Week 5 — Test transactions

    Live test transactions confirmed qualification per card type before any production volume moved.

  5. 5

    Week 6 — Cutover

    Cutover between billing cycles, with the previous setup kept available for rollback for one full cycle.

  6. 6

    Weeks 7–10 — Verification

    First full month compared against projection; qualification reported by card type and customer.

Technology and integrations

Integration changes

  • • ERP payment connector installed.
  • • Line items, freight and tax mapped to Level 3 fields.
  • • PO and customer reference populated from the order.

Processing changes

  • • Tiered pricing replaced with interchange-plus.
  • • Qualification reported by card type.

Obstacles and resolutions

Obstacle

Freight billed separately, missing from the transaction.

Resolution

Freight would move onto the invoice as a line item.

Obstacle

AR staff accustomed to the virtual terminal.

Resolution

Integrated flow would be piloted with a fallback available for one cycle.

Measurable results

Savings in this scenario would come primarily from rail routing rather than interchange: the largest invoices moved to ACH, with Level 3 applied to the card volume that remained.

Operational improvements

  • • Payments taken against the invoice rather than re-keyed.
  • • Settlement written back to the ledger daily.

Reporting improvements

  • • Qualification rate by card type.
  • • Cost to collect by customer.

Funding improvements

  • • Consistent settlement timing.
  • • Deposits reconciled to invoices automatically.

Customer experience improvements

  • • Customers pay against an invoice rather than reading a card over the phone.

Before and after

Before and after comparison for Brant Metals
MeasureBeforeAfter
Commercial card qualificationNon-qualified on most volumeLevel 3 where card and data support it
PricingTieredInterchange-plus
AR workflowKeyed into a standalone terminalTaken against the invoice in the ERP

Related services

service
Payment Processing Cost Reduction

Line-by-line statement work that removes real cost — not marketing math.

Learn more
service
Payment Integrations

Payments wired into the systems that already run your business.

Learn more
service
Statement Analysis

A written, line-by-line analysis of what you actually pay for.

Learn more

Related integrations

integration
ERP Integrations

Payment acceptance connected to the ERP where finance actually lives.

Learn more
integration
Accounting Integrations

Payments that post themselves into your books.

Learn more

Related industries

industrie
Steel & Metal Service Centers

Very large tickets, commodity pricing and payment terms that move with the market.

Learn more
industrie
Manufacturing

Deposits, progress payments and PO matching across long production cycles.

Learn more

Related insights

Insight

How to Read a Merchant Statement Line by Line

Finding the downgrades yourself before anyone quotes you a rate.

Read insights
Insight

What Is Level 3 Processing, and Who Actually Qualifies

The line-item fields that decide your interchange.

Read insights

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 Brant Metals 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.

Get a Payment Solution

Step 1 of 5

A short qualification assessment for Steel & Metal Service Centers. Takes about a minute.

What kind of business is this?

Choose the closest match — we tailor the options we review.

Related solutions and references

The pages that explain the payment methods, integrations and account structure behind this engagement.

Guideinterchange optimization guideWe do not quote a rate before seeing your statements, because a rate quoted without them is a guess dressed up as an offer.Open QuestionWhy do credit card transactions downgradeA transaction downgrades when it fails to meet the requirements of the interchange category it would otherwise qualify for and settles at a more expensive one instead. Common causes are missing line-item or Level 2 data, freight billed on a separate invoice, settlement outside the required window, a missing purchase order reference, and sales tax left blank rather than flagged exempt. A downgrade produces no error and no alert: the payment succeeds normally and simply costs more.Open Case studya worked example in millwork & architectural woodworkA custom architectural millwork shop was losing large deposits to declines and paying non-qualified interchange on every GC card payment. Restructured limits and Level 3 data changed both.Open Case studyLumber Yard Contractor Card Accounts: A Sample ScenarioA 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.Open Resourceour directoryWhat each common downgrade means, why it happened, and whether it is fixable on your side or your processor's. Most are fixable, and most businesses never see them because tiered pricing hides them.Open IndustryWholesale DistributionHigh invoice counts and thin margins, where interchange is a genuine line item.Open

Ready to see what your setup could look like?

Book a working session focused on work like the Brant Metals example. Clear recommendations, no obligation.

Get a Payment Solution Book an Integration Consultation
  • • 150+ software platforms reviewed
  • • 1,500+ merchant environments evaluated
  • • Under 24-hour average response time
  • • 7–14 business day onboarding