The UC Berkeley Terner Center published research showing factory-built housing can reduce hard construction costs by 10 to 25% and cut project timelines by 20 to 50% compared to traditional site-built delivery. (Source: "Potential Pathways to Scale Innovative Construction Methods in California," Terner Center, March 2026.) Those numbers are real. They are also frequently absent from final pro formas on projects that used factory-built housing.
The gap between what the research shows and what developers actually realize is not a manufacturing problem. The factory delivered on its end. The savings existed at the point of production. They disappeared somewhere between the factory gate and the certificate of occupancy.
Factory-built housing cost savings are front-loaded. A factory locks in labor costs, material costs, and production schedules when it prices a project. That certainty is real value. The factory delivers modules at a predictable unit cost that is typically 15 to 25% below comparable site-built construction.
The problem is that factory cost is one line item in a pro forma, not the whole project. The remaining line items are where the savings evaporate.
Inspection delays add holding costs. When a permit package moves slowly through a jurisdiction unfamiliar with factory-built housing or missing the HCD documentation required for approval, the factory production schedule does not pause. Modules that are ready to ship sit in storage. Storage carries cost. The crane window gets rescheduled and the GC adjusts its pricing.
Permit rejections are more expensive than they appear in isolation. A rejection at the local building department on a factory-built project typically requires coordination between the design team, the factory, and sometimes HCD itself. Each cycle adds three to six weeks in a typical California jurisdiction. On a project where the factory is producing on a fixed schedule, each correction cycle adds costs that come directly out of the anticipated savings.
Scope conflicts discovered at set day are the most expensive version of this problem. If the factory scope and the site scope do not align precisely at the foundation interface or the MEP stub locations, the resolution happens on-site, at GC day rates, with the crane overhead. A $30,000 factory-side scope question that surfaces on set day costs five to ten times that amount to resolve.
Utility sequencing misalignment is less visible but equally damaging. A module ready for permanent power connection that sits waiting for utility company scheduling adds weeks and cost that no factory discount can offset.
The Terner Center data is accurate about what factory-built housing can deliver. It describes projects where the conditions are right: clear scope, coordinated inspections, aligned utility timelines, and no surprises on set day.
Those conditions do not appear automatically. They are the product of deliberate coordination work done well before the factory begins production.
That coordination work is what Bequall orchestrates. Not the factory. Not the GC. The space between them, where the savings either compound or disappear. Developers who treat that space as someone else's problem find out on set day whose problem it actually is.