When it comes to drywall estimating, one of the most overlooked—but crucial—distinctions is between fire taping and full finishing. These two scopes can vary significantly in material, labor, and schedule implications. For architects, engineers, and general contractors, understanding the nuances and estimating each correctly ensures that budgets remain intact and scope creep is minimized.

What’s the Difference?

At a glance, both fire taping and full finishing involve joint treatment on drywall. But their intent, execution, and cost profiles differ sharply:

• Fire Tape: A code-driven requirement to seal joints for fire-rated assemblies. Usually a Level 1 finish—minimal compound, no sanding, and no aesthetic intent.
• Full Finish: Involves Levels 3 to 5 finish for aesthetic surfaces. Requires additional coats, sanding, and sometimes skim-coating for paint-readiness or texture.

Why Accurate Differentiation Matters

Mislabeling fire tape as full finish (or vice versa) has real financial and schedule implications:

• Material quantities and types differ (e.g., less compound for fire tape).
• Labor effort and durations can double or triple for full finishes.
• Incorrect assumptions affect the sequencing of follow-on trades (e.g., painters, ceiling installers).

Steps to Estimate Fire Tape Correctly

• Verify rated partitions via wall type legend or UL assemblies.
• Include minimal taping labor—often one coat with limited touch-up.
• Clarify fire rating responsibility in pre-bid RFIs (sometimes framing contractors include tape).

Steps to Estimate Full Finish Correctly

• Determine finish level per room schedule or architectural spec.
• Apply labor factors for each level (Level 5 often includes full skim).
• Include sanding time, clean-up, and material waste factors.

Technology’s Role in Differentiation

With tools like Active Estimating, teams can tag finish levels at the wall assembly level. This allows visual representation of finish scope—ensuring fire tape and full finish aren’t mixed in the takeoff.

• Automated tagging based on wall types
• Version-controlled records of scope assumptions
• Integration with model-based or 2D takeoff platforms

Best Practices to Avoid Scope Creep

• Use finish schedules and room data sheets as control documents during estimate review.
• Document finish assumptions in scope sheets or bid clarifications.
• Avoid “defaulting” to full finish for unknown wall types—use RFIs to verify.
• Cross-check drywall estimating values with historical benchmarks using tools like drywall estimating software.

Field Impact: A Case in Point

On a high-rise residential project, a misinterpretation led to applying full finish costs across all rated corridors—intended only for fire tape. The overage inflated drywall costs by $96,000. Once identified, the estimator adjusted assemblies in Active Estimating, and future projects were safeguarded through finish-level tagging and template controls.

Conclusion

Distinguishing between fire tape and full finish isn't just a technical nuance—it's a budgeting imperative. Estimators who recognize and document these differences clearly will earn the trust of project teams and avoid costly misunderstandings. With modern tools and a disciplined approach, drywall estimating becomes both more accurate and defensible.

Contact Information:
Active Estimating
508 2nd Street, Suite 208
Davis
California
95616

Rich Schoener
richard@activeestimating.com
(877)