Remote staffing costs for construction companies in 2026
Construction companies weighing a remote hire usually want one number: what it costs against the person they would otherwise hire locally. This article works that through with sourced inputs only, and is explicit about where the comparison stops being reliable.
F5 Hiring Solutions places full-time remote professionals from India and the Philippines and employs them directly, handling HR, payroll, equipment, and performance management. It has served 250+ companies since inception across all industries, with a 95% client retention rate measured as clients continuing beyond the first three months, and an internal sourcing and screening database of 85,500+ candidates.
What does a drafting and documentation professional actually cost?
Here is the arithmetic, with every input sourced.
The US side. Architectural and civil drafters (SOC 17-3011) carry a national median wage of $63,310 (BLS OEWS, May 2025). Wages are not the employer's total cost. Across all US civilian workers, total employer compensation costs run 1.4265 times wages alone (BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Dec 2025). Applying that factor:
$63,310 x 1.4265 = $90,312 fully loaded per year, or about $1,737 per week.
The F5 side. $375-$1,200 per week, all-inclusive. At 52 weeks that is $19,500-$62,400 per year, and the rate already covers salary, HR, compliance in the delivery country, equipment, and management. There are no setup, recruiting, or termination fees.
Three caveats worth stating plainly, because they decide whether the comparison holds for you.
The BLS figure is a national median. If you hire in a high-cost metro your local number sits above it, so the real gap is wider than shown. In a lower-cost metro it is narrower. Running this against your own offer letters is more useful than running it against the national figure.
The 1.4265 factor is an all-worker average, not an exact loading for this occupation. It is the right order of magnitude, not a precise multiplier for your payroll.
The F5 band is a range across all roles and seniorities, not a quote. Where in $19,500-$62,400 a specific hire lands depends on the role and the experience level, and you should get that in writing before comparing.
How do the two models compare?
The table below carries only figures that are sourced. Where a number is not published, it says so rather than carrying an estimate.
| Factor | F5 Hiring Solutions | US in-house hire |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost, one person | $19,500-$62,400 ($375-$1,200 per week, all-inclusive) | $90,312 fully loaded (SOC 17-3011, x1.4265) |
| What the rate covers | Salary, HR, compliance, equipment, management | Salary only; benefits, taxes, equipment and space are separate |
| Setup, recruiting and termination fees | $0 | Recruiting cost varies by firm and role |
| Time to shortlist | 7-14 business days | Varies by role and local market |
| Replacement terms | 7-14 days, zero cost | Restart recruitment |
| Who employs the person | F5 | You |
| Client retention | 95% beyond the first three months | Not applicable |
An earlier version of this article carried a third column of industry-average outsourcing figures. Those numbers were not sourced to any vendor's published pricing, so the column has been removed rather than restated.
Which roles transfer to a remote team?
The useful test is not seniority, it is whether the output can be reviewed by a named person on your side. Work that produces a document, a model, a record, or a ticket travels well. Work whose output is a decision, a relationship, or a signature does not.
Transfers well. Drawing production, submittal and RFI coordination, document control, and takeoff support. These run inside your systems, under your access controls, and produce something a supervisor can check.
Stays in-house. Site supervision, licensed engineering sign-off, or anything requiring physical presence on site.
Depends on your contracts. Client agreements, insurer requirements, and regulatory obligations frequently restrict where data may be accessed. Check that language before scoping the role rather than after someone starts. It is the most common reason a remote programme has to be unwound.
The workable pattern is preparer offshore, reviewer onshore. The remote professional produces the work; a named person on your side reviews it and owns the outcome. That split keeps both the cost advantage and the accountability chain.
How the engagement runs
Scope by function, not headcount. List the actual queues or deliverables you want covered rather than asking for "two people". Function-level scoping is what makes the later performance conversation objective.
Provision access under your controls. Named credentials in your systems, role-based permissions, and logging enabled. The person works in your environment, so your controls stay authoritative and your audit trail stays intact.
Ramp on lower-risk work first. Start with a subset of the workload and a named reviewer, then widen once the error rate holds for a full cycle. Starting at full volume is how remote programmes acquire a reputation for poor quality that is really a supervision problem.
Keep the review step written down. Name the reviewer, the frequency, and the evidence. "Someone checks it" is not a control.
What the all-inclusive rate covers, and what it does not
"All-inclusive" is a claim worth interrogating with any provider, including this one, because the word means different things across the market.
Included. Salary and statutory employer contributions in the delivery country, HR administration, payroll, laptop and software provisioning, internet connectivity, onboarding, and ongoing performance monitoring. Replacement within 7-14 days at no cost if the fit is wrong.
Not included. Seat licences for your own tooling, whatever your systems charge per user, and anything requiring a US credential. If your workflow depends on an expensive per-seat product, that cost sits with you in either model, so leave it out of the comparison entirely rather than assigning it to one side.
The three costs that move between the quote and your overhead. Equipment and software, employment compliance in the delivery country, and the cost of replacing someone who leaves. A quote that excludes all three is not cheaper, it is narrower in scope. When comparing any two providers, ask which of the three each one carries, in writing.
How to compare quotes without fooling yourself
Four practical rules.
Annualise everything. Hourly, weekly, and monthly quotes are not comparable as stated. Multiply out to a full year on both sides before looking at the difference.
Use your own salary data, not a national median. The BLS figures in this article are national. Your last offer letter for this role is a better input than any average, and it is the number your finance team will recognise.
Separate staffing from outsourcing. A provider who places a named person you direct is selling something different from a vendor who absorbs a function and bills per transaction. Both are legitimate; the quotes are not comparable.
Ask what happens in month seven. Continuity is where the real money sits. A cheaper rate that turns over twice a year costs more than a higher rate that does not, because every handover is retraining time on your side.
F5 Honest Limitations
No self-serve portal. F5 runs a concierge model. You cannot browse candidate profiles independently; a discovery call comes first.
India and Philippines only. F5 does not place staff from Latin America, Eastern Europe, or Africa. Firms needing same-shift Americas overlap should use a nearshore provider.
Not for short-term projects. F5 places full-time professionals on ongoing roles. A bounded project, a seasonal surge, or a few hours a month is a poor fit.
No licensed US sign-off. F5 does not supply credentialed professionals who can sign, seal, attest, or represent you to a regulator. Those relationships stay with your firm.
Who should NOT use F5: construction companies needing fractional or part-time help, a browsable talent marketplace, transaction-priced capacity that flexes week to week, staff outside India and the Philippines, or licensed sign-off. In those cases a different model is the correct purchase, and F5 will say so on a discovery call.
Bottom Line
Remote staffing works for construction companies when the work is continuous, system-mediated, and reviewable by a named person on your side. It fails when it is treated as a way to shed accountability rather than add capacity.
On the numbers: the closest US benchmark for this work is architectural and civil drafters at a $63,310 median (BLS OEWS May 2025, SOC 17-3011), about $90,312 fully loaded at the 1.4265x ECEC factor. F5 Hiring Solutions bills $375-$1,200 per week, all-inclusive, or $19,500-$62,400 a year. Run it against your own market before deciding.
To scope a role and see what a shortlist would look like, schedule a 15-minute call.