Production Rates: Understanding Substrate Rate Configuration & Multi-Coat Pricing

Every substrate in your Production Rates has a rate table with entries for 1 coat, 2 coats, and 3 coats. When you build a proposal and select a coat count for a substrate, DripJobs reads the corresponding rate value and uses it to calculate that substrate's labor cost.

This means the accuracy of your proposal pricing depends entirely on the accuracy of the values you've entered in your rate tables. If a rate value is entered incorrectly, the proposal price for that substrate will be calculated incorrectly — even though the math itself is working as intended.

💡

Think of It Like a Formula

DripJobs is doing exactly what you tell it to. If the values in your rate table accurately represent how long your work takes, your proposals will price accurately. If a value is off, even slightly, that error flows directly into every proposal that uses that substrate.

The most important thing to understand about substrate configuration is that different calculation types interpret rate values in opposite ways. Getting this wrong is the most common source of pricing surprises.

The rate represents how many hours the work takes. A higher number means more time, which means a higher price.

For Man Hour(s) substrates: as coats increase, the rate should increase — more coats means more time.

The rate represents how fast a painter can work — how many linear or square feet they can complete in one hour. A higher number means the painter is faster, which means fewer total hours, which means a lower price.

⚠️

Important: Speed-Based Types Work in Reverse — Usually

For Linear Foot Per Man Hour and Square Foot Per Man Hour substrates, increasing the rate value decreases the price — because a faster painter takes fewer hours. For multi-coat entries, rates should generally decrease as coats increase, since more coats typically means slower progress per hour.

Real-world exception: Sometimes later coats genuinely are faster — for example, a second coat on a surface where the first coat sealed absorption and established edges, or a spray-only second coat after a slower spray-and-back-roll first coat. In these cases, a higher rate on coat 2 can be intentional and correct. What matters is that your rate table accurately reflects how your crew actually works.

The golden rule: as coat count increases, the cost to complete that substrate should increase. Your rate table values should reflect this in the direction appropriate for your calculation type.

Rates should increase across coat columns, because more coats = more time.

Rates should typically decrease across coat columns, because more coats usually means slower production speed — more hours — higher price.

💡

Exception: When a Later Coat Is Genuinely Faster

In some real-world workflows, a second coat can be faster than the first — for example, when the first coat involves cutting in and sealing a porous surface while the second coat is a smooth continuous roll or spray-only pass. If that reflects how your crew works, a higher rate on coat 2 can be correct. What matters is that your rates produce the right proposal price — not that they follow a specific pattern.

Prep tasks (power washing, masking, caulking, scraping, etc.) are performed once before painting begins — they don't repeat for each coat. For these substrates, it's correct and expected to have 0.00 for both the 2-coat and 3-coat fields.

✅

Zero is Fine for Prep Work

Zeros in the 2-coat and 3-coat columns are only a concern on non-prep substrates. If you see zeros in your Prep Work category, that's correct behavior — don't change them.

These are the most common rate table entry errors that lead to unexpected pricing in proposals.

Mistake #1 — Entering Speed-Based Rates in Increasing Order When They Shouldn't Be

What it looks like: A Linear Foot Per Man Hour or Square Foot Per Man Hour substrate where the 2-coat rate is higher than the 1-coat rate — and there's no intentional reason for it.

Why it usually happens: It's intuitive to enter increasing numbers across coat columns — that pattern is correct for Man Hour(s) substrates. But for speed-based types, more coats typically means slower production, so the rate usually needs to decrease as coats increase.

💡

When Increasing Rates Can Be Intentional

There are real scenarios where a later coat genuinely is faster — for example, when the first coat involves significant cutting in, masking, and sealing a porous surface, while the second coat is a smooth continuous pass. Or when coat 1 is spray+back-roll and coat 2 is spray-only. If that matches your workflow, a higher rate on a later coat may be correct. The key question: does changing the coat count in a proposal produce the price you expect? If yes — you're set.

How to fix an unintentional inversion: Reduce the 2-coat and 3-coat rates so they are progressively lower than the 1-coat rate. Or switch this substrate to the Man Hour(s) type and re-enter values as time (e.g., 0.5 hrs, 1.0 hrs, 1.5 hrs) — this eliminates the inversion risk entirely.

Mistake #2 — Leaving 2-Coat and 3-Coat as Zero on Non-Prep Substrates

What it looks like: A Man Hour(s) substrate (outside of Prep Work) where the 1-coat rate has a value, but 2-coat and 3-coat are 0.00.

Why it happens: This is common when substrates are set up quickly — only the first coat value is entered and the rest are left at their default of zero. It's easy to miss because the substrate appears to work fine when proposals use 1-coat pricing.

How to fix it: Enter appropriate hour values for 2-coat and 3-coat. A general starting point: 2-coat ≈ 1.8× the 1-coat value, 3-coat ≈ 2.6× the 1-coat value. Adjust based on your actual production experience.

Mistake #3 — Using an Inconsistent Calculation Type Within a Category

What it looks like: Most substrates in a category use Man Hour(s), but one substrate uses Linear Foot Per Man Hour (or vice versa).

Why it matters: Within a well-defined category (like Window Trim or Door Trim), all substrates should typically use the same calculation type. A mismatch often signals the substrate was added from a different context, and the rates may not have been adjusted to match the new type's logic.

How to fix it: Review the outlier substrate. If the type is intentional, verify the rate values are appropriate for that type. If it was entered in error, switch it to match the category's standard type and re-enter the rates.

It's worth doing a periodic review of your substrate rate tables, especially for categories that include multi-coat work. Here's how.

For each substrate using one of these types, confirm:

For each non-prep substrate using Man Hour(s), confirm:

💡

Quick Sanity Check in a Proposal

A fast way to verify a substrate's rates are working correctly: create a test proposal, add the substrate, and change the coat count from 1 to 2. The substrate's line item price should increase. If it stays the same or decreases, the rate table for that substrate needs to be reviewed.

🙋

Need Help Reviewing Your Rates?

If you're unsure whether your production rates are set up correctly, or if you're seeing unexpected pricing in proposals, reach out to DripJobs Support. Our team can walk you through your configuration and help you identify anything that needs adjustment.

If you'd prefer a meeting regarding this setup, feel free to schedule a expert meeting here: Production Rates Expert Meeting