Sample Restoration Invoice Audit Report: Real Xactimate Overbilling Findings

How it's built

Our report structure

Every report follows the same layout, so your team always knows where to look, and every finding is tied back to the documents in the file.

1

Executive summary

A snapshot up top: how many variances we identified, what needs clarification, and what checked out clean.

2

Itemized findings

Each billing item is reviewed individually and color-coded by status, so nothing is buried.

3

Documentation-tied analysis

Every finding cites the exact files and line items it's based on: invoice, moisture report, sketch, daily logs.

4

Recommendation & dollar impact

A clear next step and the potential adjustment, written in neutral, defensible language.

5

Ready-to-send contractor follow-up

A professionally worded request you can paste straight into an email. No rewriting required.

6

Editable, copy-friendly format

Copy any section or the whole report into your own templates, letterhead, or claim notes.

At a glance

What the report found

The executive summary up top, then every finding ranked by potential dollar impact, biggest first, so the largest opportunities are never buried 30 pages in.

RestorationAudit Pro - Executive Summary Sample claim · Water mitigation

Executive summary

37 checks run across the invoice package. The at-a-glance result before any single line gets opened up.

14Variances identified

7Need clarification

16No issues found

Highest-impact findings in this report

1

Non-salvageable tear-out billed on flooring documented as already dry

$7,178

2

Dehumidifier billing dates don't line up with the moisture readings

$5,278

3

Air movers billed past the documented dry-out date

$4,761

4

More equipment billed at once than the drying plan supports

$3,573

5

Multi-day equipment rental discounts never applied

$1,980

6

HEPA vacuuming charged on a non-mold (Cat 1/2) loss

$1,881

7

Dehumidifier sizing above the AHAM specification

$1,248

Fourteen variances were flagged in this report. The seven with the largest potential impact are shown here, biggest first. The examples below show how findings like these are caught.

Examples

A few example findings

Four illustrative catches, in plain English, each one tied back to the specific documents in the file. The first three come from the water-mitigation report above: after-hours emergency service charges, equipment overbilling on air movers and dehumidifiers, and missed multi-day rental discounts. The fourth is a labor-rate catch from a separate Time & Materials claim, showing the same line-by-line scrutiny applied to an hourly invoice.

1

Example: Emergency call billed outside emergency hours

An "emergency service call - after business hours" was billed at $407. To earn that premium the response has to clear one of two bars: arrive after business hours, or arrive within four hours of an after-hours call. Lining up the timestamps across the labor invoice and the moisture report, the documentation shows it cleared neither.

Carrier-specific SLA Unlike most of our checks, the four-hour response window here isn't an IICRC or industry standard. It's a service-level agreement specific to this carrier. We audit against whatever rules actually govern the claim, so alongside the published industry standards we also hold each line to the carrier's own SLAs and program requirements.

RestorationAudit Pro - Emergency Service Call Sample claim · Water mitigation

The line item

Emergency service call - after business hours 1.00 EA × $407.00 = $407.00

What the documentation shows

11:02 PMTue, Aug 6After hours

Assignment received. The call does come in after hours.

11:13 PMTue, Aug 6

Insured contacted.

3:02 AMWed, Aug 74-hour window closes

The emergency response window expires. Still no crew on site.

8:10 AMWed, Aug 7Business hours

Crew arrives on site, 9h 08m after the call, inside standard hours (8:00 AM–5:30 PM).

Arrival time is identical on the invoice and the moisture report (8:10 AM), so this is a timing problem, not a data-entry error.

Does it qualify for the after-hours premium?

Arrived after business hours?

✕ No

On site at 8:10 AM, within standard hours on a non-holiday weekday.

Responded within the 4-hour window?

✕ No

9h 08m elapsed from the 11:02 PM call. The window closed at 3:02 AM.

Audit Result $407.00 Neither emergency condition is met, so the after-hours premium isn't supported as billed.

Why this one's interesting

It's an easy one to miss. The paperwork did show an 11:02 PM timestamp, so at a glance the after-hours charge looks justified. The catch is that the call came in after hours but the crew didn't actually arrive until office hours the next morning. You only see it if you reconcile the arrival time against that timestamp, not the timestamp alone.

Every finding includes a ready-to-send contractor follow-up. Here's the one generated for this example. Copy it straight into an email to the contractor, no rewriting.

To:contractor@example.com

Subject:Documentation request: Emergency service call billing

A $407.00 "after-hours emergency service call" was billed, but the documented onsite arrival of 8:10 AM on Wednesday, August 7 falls within standard business hours, and the arrival time is consistent between the invoice and the moisture report. Please provide any documentation supporting the after-hours classification, such as records of after-hours mobilization or a response within the 4-hour window. Absent that, this line item may warrant a $407.00 adjustment.

2

Example: Drying chambers split without justification

On paper the equipment all looks right. Every unit is correctly sized. The problem sits one level up. Cross-referencing the moisture report against the property sketch, two open areas had each been billed as two separate drying chambers, and because equipment is priced per chamber, that quietly doubles the air movers and dehumidifiers for those spaces.

RestorationAudit Pro - Drying Chamber Sizing Sample claim · Water mitigation

Step 1: Equipment sizing vs. IICRC S500

First, the standard check every reviewer runs: is the equipment in each chamber correctly sized? We ran all seven drying chambers against the ANSI/IICRC S500 maximums calculated by the MICA system, comparing the billed air movers and dehumidifiers in each against that chamber's class, volume, and affected surface area.

✓

Air-mover counts within the per-chamber S500 maximum, none oversized.

✓

Dehumidifier capacity (AHAM pints-per-day) appropriate for the calculated load in every chamber.

✓

No duplicate or redundant equipment billed on any chamber.

✓

Class and category assumptions consistent with the documented moisture readings.

On its face the equipment all looks appropriate, which is exactly why this one usually gets approved.

Step 2: Chamber layout vs. the sketch

Each chamber passes on its own, but two of them may not be separate chambers at all.

Cross-referencing each chamber back to the property sketch, two of the flagged spaces appear to sit inside a single continuous, open area with no wall or doorway between them. Because S500 equipment quantities are calculated per chamber, treating one open area as two chambers likely affects how much drying equipment the estimate supports for that space. We'd want justification for the split before accepting it, and if it can't be supported, combining the areas would likely bring the allowed drying equipment down. It's the kind of thing you only catch by going back to the floor plan, not the equipment list.

Floor	Billed as	The sketch shows
3rd floor	Chamber 1 + Chamber 2	One continuous open area
2nd floor	Chamber 3 + Chamber 4	One continuous open area

Recommendation Request clarification justifying the two chamber splits. If they can't be supported, the allowed drying equipment for those areas would likely come down.

Why this one's interesting

Most reviewers stop at chamber sizes and equipment counts, and on its face everything here looks appropriate, so it gets approved. Our AI goes a step further, cross-checking the other documents for justification, and caught the unsupported chamber split right in the sketch. It's a great example of something even trained reviewers routinely miss.

And the ready-to-send follow-up for this one:

To:contractor@example.com

Subject:Documentation request: Drying chamber configuration

The moisture documentation shows two continuous areas each divided into separate drying chambers (Chambers 1 & 2 and 3 & 4), which increases the recommended air mover and dehumidifier counts. Please provide the justification for treating these as separate chambers, or confirm whether a combined-chamber configuration applies. Absent supporting documentation, the equipment quantities for these areas may need to be recalculated on a combined-chamber basis.

3

Example: Multi-day equipment rental discounts never applied

Equipment that stays on site long enough qualifies for multi-day rental discounts, which means checking every unit, in every room, against its exact days on site. Reconciling the equipment billing against the days documented in the moisture report, unit after unit had passed the 7- and 14-day thresholds, but the reduced rates were never applied.

RestorationAudit Pro - Equipment Rental Discounts Sample claim · Water mitigation

Equipment rental discounts owed

21 units reviewed7 areas2 discount tiers3 source documents

Area	Equipment	Units	Rate / day	Days on site	Discount tier	Discount
Side Entry	Air mover	4	$38.00	7.82	>7 days · 2-day	$304.004 × $76.00
Garage	Air mover	8	$38.00	7.97	>7 days · 2-day	$608.008 × $76.00
Master Bathroom	Air mover	4	$38.00	14.11	>14 days · 4-day	$608.004 × $152.00
Subtotal: Air movers		16				$1,520.00
Side Entry	Dehumidifier (70–109 ppd)	2	$83.54	8.08	>7 days · 2-day	$334.162 × $167.08
Master Bathroom	Dehumidifier (≤69 ppd)	1	$62.82	13.96	>7 days · 2-day	$125.641 × $125.64
Subtotal: Dehumidifiers		3				$459.80
Hall Bathroom	Air scrubber	1	n/a	4.28	≤7 days · none	$0.00
Main Hallway	Air scrubber	1	n/a	2.20	≤7 days · none	$0.00
Total discount owed						$1,979.80

Every line here was reconciled by hand from the equipment invoice, moisture log, and pricing schedule: 21 units across 7 areas, each checked against its exact days on site and discount tier. That's the tedious part we do for you.

Audit Result $1,979.80 Multi-day rental discounts that should have been applied, but weren't.

Why this one's interesting

Nothing about this one is hard. It's just tedious. Verifying multi-day rental discounts means tracking every piece of equipment across every day in a spreadsheet, and that takes time most teams don't have. We just hand you the answer, plus a ready-to-copy contractor response.

And the follow-up, the tedious part, already written for you:

To:contractor@example.com

Subject:Documentation request: Multi-day equipment rental discounts

Several pieces of equipment were on site beyond the 7- and 14-day thresholds that qualify for multi-day rental discounts under the program guidelines, but the discounts don't appear to have been applied: $1,520.00 on air movers and $459.80 on dehumidifiers. Please confirm whether the multi-day rental rates can be applied, for a total adjustment of $1,979.80.

4

Example: Crew billed above the rates on file

A labor rate is the easiest line on an invoice to skim past: $77.70 an hour for a technician looks perfectly ordinary. It's only wrong against two yardsticks the documents quietly set: the rate that same worker was billed at on every other day, and the rate fixed in the signed pricing agreement. Reconciling the labor invoice against the pricing schedule, both yardsticks were crossed.

RestorationAudit Pro - Labor Rate Variance Sample claim · Time & materials

Check 1: The same tech, two different rates

One technician, Carlos M., was billed at their usual rate on every documented day but one. On 09/12/2025 the rate jumped, with nothing in the file to support it.

Worker	Standard rate	Rate on 09/12/2025	Variance	Hours billed that day
Carlos M. (Tech)	$69.30/hr	$77.70/hr	+$8.40/hr	6.00

The $69.30/hr rate is what they were billed at on nine other documented days, so $8.40/hr over the 6.00 hours that day comes to $50.40. Nothing on the line item itself looks off: $77.70/hr is a normal tech rate. It only surfaces by lining the same worker up against their own rate on the other nine days.

Check 2: Rates above the pricing agreement

Separately, two roles were invoiced above the rates set in the signed pricing agreement, across four workers.

Role	Agreement rate	Invoice rate	Variance	Workers affected
PM	$115.50/hr	$120.75/hr	+$5.25/hr	David R., Sarah K., Michael T.
PA	$68.25/hr	$93.45/hr	+$25.20/hr	Ashley B.

Across the four affected workers (39.5 documented hours), the gap against the agreement totals $386.93.

The pattern: one rate, checked against two sources of truth

Both checks are the same question asked twice: is this rate higher than what the documents say it should be? A single benchmark would have caught only part of it. Check 1 holds each rate to the worker's own billing history; Check 2 holds it to the signed agreement. A line can clear one and still fail the other.

Check 1

Checked against the worker's own rate history $77.70/hr billed vs. $69.30/hr on every other documented day

$50.40

Check 2

Checked against the signed pricing agreement PM and PA roles billed above contract rates, across four workers

$386.93

Total questioned across both checks $437.33

Audit Result $437.33 Labor billed above both the worker's own established rate and the rates in the pricing agreement.

Why this one's interesting

A wrong rate is invisible on its own: there's no obvious error on the line, just a number that's a few dollars high. Catching it means holding every hour against two references at once: what the same person was billed on every other day, and what the contract says the role is worth. That's exactly the kind of cross-check that's easy to skip and easy to automate.

Every finding includes a ready-to-send contractor follow-up. Here's the one generated for this example. Copy it straight into an email to the contractor, no rewriting.

To:contractor@example.com

Subject:Documentation request: Labor rate variances

A few labor rates on the invoice were billed above their supporting documentation. Carlos M. (Tech) was billed at $77.70/hr on 09/12/2025 versus their usual $69.30/hr on every other documented day, a $50.40 difference. Separately, the PM and PA roles were invoiced above the pricing agreement ($120.75/hr vs. $115.50/hr and $93.45/hr vs. $68.25/hr), totaling $386.93 across four workers. Please provide documentation supporting these rates, or adjust to the documented and agreed rates, for a total adjustment of $437.33.

These are four of the dozens of checks in every report, and they all arrive the same way: tied to your documents, written in plain, defensible language, and paired with a follow-up you can send in one click. Your team gets a short list of exactly what to question, and the words to question it with.

Want the full report?

We'll send you the complete audit for this claim, every finding line by line, and we're happy to walk you through it live if that's useful.

No spam. Just the full report.

A look inside one of our audit reports

Our report structure

Executive summary

Itemized findings

Documentation-tied analysis

Recommendation & dollar impact

Ready-to-send contractor follow-up

Editable, copy-friendly format

What the report found

A few example findings

Example: Emergency call billed outside emergency hours

Example: Drying chambers split without justification

Example: Multi-day equipment rental discounts never applied

Example: Crew billed above the rates on file

Want the full report?

See what your audit uncovers