What Your Gas Budget Doesn't Tell You

There are some figures we approve without really looking at them. Fuel costs, in a public works company, are often one of them. The bill arrives. It’s within budget—or almost. We move on to something else. 

That’s understandable. When you’re managing construction sites, teams, deadlines, and bids all at once, you have to pick your battles. Fuel seems like an unavoidable expense—a constraint, not a lever. 

Except that this line of reasoning is expensive. 

The bill is right here. But the real cost remains hidden.

According to an analysisby Equipment Watch, fuel accounts for nearly 42% of construction equipment operating costs, ahead of maintenance, parts, and labor. That’s a significant amount. And yet, in most construction companies, no one is really able to answer this simple question:  

How many of those liters actually generated value? 

Not the total consumed, since that figure is already listed on your bill. The productive portion—the portion corresponding to earthwork performed, trenches dug, and materials compacted. 

The difference between the two is what is known as non-productive consumption. And in fleets with limited monitoring capabilities, it is far from negligible. 

What's Really Happening on the Ground

Just because an engine is running doesn't necessarily mean it's working. 

On an active construction site, machinery spends a significant portion of its time waiting for materials, instructions, or coordination that is slow in coming. Engines running. Fuel consumed. Value produced: zero. 

On top of that, there are discrepancies in fuel replenishment. The reported volumes don’t always match the gauges. These small discrepancies, over the course of a year and across a fleet of ten or more vessels, end up amounting to sums that few site managers can even imagine. 

It’s not a matter of unwillingness. It’s a matter of visibility. These situations exist all over the world, as documented by sector studies conducted by Caterpillar, McKinsey, and Geotab. In sub-Saharan Africa, they are exacerbated by the distance between construction sites and decision-making centers, as well as by the inadequacy of monitoring tools, which are still widely used in the sector. 

The impact on your profit margins is more direct than you might think.

Here's what many CFOs discover too late. 

A fuel variance of 10 to 12 percent on a construction site—a range commonly observed in non-monitored fleets—can eat into a significant portion of the expected net margin. On some projects, it can wipe it out entirely. 

This is not a theoretical scenario. It is a mechanism that has been documented, quantified, and is entirely preventable. 

The good news: Companies that have chosen to accurately track their energy consumption have seen significant reductions in less than a year—without cutting back on their operations or making massive investments. Just by using data. 

Your fuel budget won't tell you the whole story 

Our study gets right to the heart of the matter. It breaks down each source of loss, quantifies it without beating around the bush, and reveals why construction sites in sub-Saharan Africa are the most vulnerable. Above all, it demonstrates in concrete terms how public works companies have regained control over their fuel costs and turned a silent drain on resources into a driver of performance. 

It is based on data published by McKinsey, the World Bank, Caterpillar, and Geotab. It is written for fleet managers, site supervisors, and executives of public works companies in Africa. It is free. 

→ If you'd like to learn more about this topic, please send us a message and we’ll share our analysis with you for free.