Powerful Quality Control With Proven ROI.

The SKUR ROI proposition is simple and impressive.

In case after case, the cost of buying or renting a scanner, performing scans, and then running the SKUR Diff process results in ROI beyond expectations. Simply put, SKUR allows quality control to happen in real-time, risk mitigation is simplified, errors are fixed sooner, supply chains don't get stopped, and personnel is utilized with greater efficiency.

Here are several case studies that will even get the skeptics on board. Fast.

ROI Client Case Study

Evaluation and Correction of a Suspected Discrepancy







As-built discrepancies are a part of every job and often they have little or no impact. However, critical issues do arise and they are expensive. In this example, a structural component was improperly assembled and installed by a sub-contractor.  The error was not discovered until after additional dependent components had also been installed.

Cost Analysis: Repairs and corrections cost approximately $90,000, including pre- and post- measurement by a survey team, Engineering analysis and report, removal of all improperly installed components, re-manufacturing of damaged components, and installation and inspection of new components.  This section of the project was delayed by approximately three weeks, preventing further development and putting several trades on hold.

SKUR ROI: The day cost for a high-resolution LIDAR scanner, a surveyor (or other trained professional), and SKUR “Diff” would have been about $5,000. SKUR would have detected the error before the installation of dependent components, resulting in re-setting costs of approximately $8,000, and without the need to re-manufacture components damaged during removal or to shut down the job site.

There are many instances on a job where precise as-built details are critical to quality control, pre-inspection analysis, and to confidently complete milestones. SKUR allows for easy one-time analysis to prevent major issues.

ROI Client Case Study

Integrated Routine Quality Control


$363,000 to $538,000 +


$675,000 / $136,500

494% +


One common usage for frequent, scheduled, scanning and ‘Diffing’ is with structural elements. In the case below, post-tensioned (PT) slabs and concrete walls were tested on every floor of a 22 story structure. Each floor received an average 7 scans and SKUR Diffs.

Analysis: Overall, the frequent scanning and Diffing process provided three primary benefits.

First, the General Contractor was empowered to make a variety floor-by-floor adjustments to compensate for variances that generally ranged from 2-4 inches. This allowed for extraordinary confidence in the as-built structural elements with very little time lost for corrections.

Next, a wide variety of subcontractors were able to immediately install components without costly adjustments or holds. One example: facade and glazing teams required little time rigging for out-of-tolerance structural members.

Finally, the building now has a permanent record of all structural elements. The information and the resulting visualizations have aided in inspections, post-build modifications, and are beginning to be utilized now by the facilities management team.

SKUR ROI: Purchase of the high-resolution LIDAR scanner cost $80,000, onsite technician billed at $750/day (22 days, $16,500), and client purchased four 50 Diff packages ($40,000) for a total program cost of $136,500.

In addition to the numerous small adjustments made as a result of the scanning and Diffing process, three critical issues were immediately identified and corrected without causing any significant work stoppage, supply chain blockages, or rebuilds. The estimated cost savings of repairing these three critical issues at an early stage ranged from $500,000 to $675,000.

However, the ROI stated here is likely grossly understated because we cannot know the value of all the small changes made along the way. The time saved by the Facade team is estimated to be in the hundreds of hours. Also, the cost of the LIDAR scanner will be amortized to include it’s production value on other projects; realistically adding years of value to multiple projects.

ROI Client Case Study

Interface Validation


$850,000 to $1,300,000


$1,300,000 / $210,000


Validating Interfaces Designed To Receive Manufactured Components

Construction projects often need to precisely match a built interface with components after being manufactured or assembled remotely. The most common and classic examples are complicated facades and large-scale Mechanical systems. Because one part is often built remotely, an error in the on-site as-built component will cause significant delays if discovered after manufacture, shipping, and attempted installation.

Project Description: A new corporate headquarters was designed with an almost 100-yard-long twisting and undulating glass facade connecting to a cantilevered atrium roof.

SKUR Diffing was used in two ways. The first was to scan to validate the correct as-built positions of the cantilevered beams and the corresponding ground-level embedded fixtures.  The second series of scans and SKUR Diffs involved visiting the manufacturing plant to scan each undulating and twisting column during manufacture.

The onsite scans revealed two unique problems. First, several of the jutting beams were outside of lateral tolerances and would need to be repositioned. The second discovery was far more critical; the load of a roof garden opposite one area of the cantilevered facades was causing unacceptable, and variable, vertical fluctuations.

The remote scans revealed only minor deviances from the design specifications. However, due to the issues discovered on site, and the fact that the manufactured components had not yet been shipped, the client was able to reconfigure several components and delay shipping until on site issues were resolved.


The critical issue surrounding the roof garden load required significant re-engineering and retrofitting throughout the facade and roof garden sections of the development. Luckily the issues were discovered before many dependent construction phases were initiated or completed, and before many manufactured components had been shipped.

All aspects of the refit cost approximately $210,000.

In order to estimate ROI, the Project Management team calculated the cost of the refit by looking at subsequent milestones when the issues likely would have been detected. These milestones ranged from several weeks to several months down the project timeline. Stages evaluated for estimating cost included shipping and reshipping, remanufacturing, component removal, refitting, trade holds, and engineering and architectural fees.

ROI Client Case Study

Model Validation for Risk Mitigation




$108,000 / $12,000


Know The Accuracy Of CAD Models Built From Scan Data - Before You Begin Work.

Working with existing, versus new, structures usually starts with the often mind-numbing experience of measuring and modeling the actual building. These days LIDAR scans are becoming common and can be used to capture an existing environment.  Then a team (often offshore) uses the scan data to build a 3D model that can be used by the Architectural, Mechanical and Planning teams. But who is responsible for the quality of the 3D model, and who takes responsibility is the model is inaccurate?


A large office campus was beginning a project to update several of its buildings for seismic and mechanical upgrades, while also looking to creating accurate working models for Building Information Management software (BIM). The General Contractor began by scanning two buildings and sending the scans to a team in India for conversion to CAD models. These models were then verified by a survey team and subsequently approved for production.

And almost as soon as the retrofit began it became evident the models were good or good enough in certain areas but critically inaccurate in others. And one-by-one, each designer, engineer, and sub-contractor made it clear they wouldn’t, couldn’t, be held responsible for work done based on inaccurate models. This left the GC with little recourse.

SKUR was then used to match the veracity original LIDAR scans to the models built offshore and to test the final production model. The results showed the models contained a variety of errors, most likely due assumptions made while interpreting the LIDAR data. The result was an immediate work stoppage and nine weeks delay while the design and engineering teams reworked and resubmitted plans for client and local planning approval.

The cost of performing SKUR Diffs to compare the 27 original LIDAR scans to the models would have been about $5,000. Additionally, professional fees to investigate discrepancies SKUR revealed are estimated to have been about $7,000. And since the contract with the model maker allowed for corrections before final sign-off, there would have been no additional cost for reworking the models at this early stage.

The cost of work stoppages can be difficult to calculate. For this case study, we evaluated design and engineering fees, rental costs for idle heavy equipment, wages for Subcontractor teams held onsite for a week after the initial error discovery, legal fees, and planning department fees.  In all, about $108,000 in unanticipated costs were easily identifiable. Likely the number is double.