Quick question — over the last six months, several lenders have asked me to deliver full PCAs in 48 hours with “photo-heavy, narrative-light” reports, but my standard is an ASTM-compliant review with roof access, basic MEP sampling, and a 10-day writeup to properly document condition. Are you accepting these compressed scopes, or pushing back on fees, scope, and liability exposure?
I’ve been taking the 48‑hour asks only as a “photo-heavy, narrative-light” triage: drone roof visuals, no MEP sampling, a two-page risk table, and a clear non‑ASTM disclaimer, then I deliver the full E2018 in 7–10 days. I price it +40% rush and cap reliance to the triage scope; if they won’t accept those exclusions, I pass. It keeps liability sane while still getting them something decision-ready fast.
I treat ‘48 hours’ as a snapshot with a signed ASTM variance and a rush fee; roof access only if escorted/safe, and MEP is visual with a quick IR sweep — , but it keeps us covered… If they proceed to the full ASTM, I credit the rush and deliver the real writeup in 10 days. Small tip: bake that exact scope into your proposal language so lender teams can just check a box and acknowledge the ‘photo-heavy, narrative-light’ limits, @OP.