Buyer case study — completed project
Completed cold room project: real costs, timeline and lessons learned
A regional food distributor in Northern Europe replaced an ageing +2 °C chilled store with a two-zone cold room (+2 °C chilled and −22 °C frozen) serving 1,540 pallet positions. The project is complete and operating. Below are the final costs, the week-by-week programme, the two lines that overran, and what the buyer would do differently.
Short answer
The completed 1,240 m² two-zone cold room cost USD 2.41M against a USD 2.25M approved budget — a 7.1% overrun caused almost entirely by ground works and standby power, not by the refrigeration plant. It took 34 weeks from brief to handover: 8 weeks defining the project and issuing one identical RFQ to five suppliers, 4 weeks of bidding and normalisation, 3 weeks of contracting, 17 weeks of build and commissioning, and 2 weeks of performance testing. Raw bids spread 31%; after exclusions were priced in, the true spread was 12%.
Project at a glance
- Facility
- Two-zone cold room, 1,240 m² gross
- Temperatures
- +2 °C chilled (860 m²) and −22 °C frozen (380 m²)
- Capacity
- 1,540 pallet positions, mobile racking in the chilled zone
- Refrigeration
- Central NH₃/glycol plant, N+1 compressors
- Approved budget
- USD 2.25M
- Final cost
- USD 2.41M (+7.1%)
- Programme
- 34 weeks, brief to handover (3 weeks late)
- Suppliers invited
- 5 pre-qualified; 4 compliant bids returned
Final cost breakdown, budget vs actual
| Cost line | Budget | Actual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Refrigeration plant and controls | USD 705,000 | USD 698,000 | Fixed-price package; N+1 compressors, heat recovery included. |
| Insulated envelope (panels, doors, floors) | USD 512,000 | USD 529,000 | Two extra fast-action doors added after the racking layout changed. |
| Racking and internal fit-out | USD 268,000 | USD 268,000 | Mobile racking in chilled zone, static pallet racking frozen side. |
| Civil and ground works | USD 285,000 | USD 372,000 | Overrun — poor sub-base found after breaking ground; see lessons. |
| Electrical supply and standby power | USD 196,000 | USD 254,000 | Overrun — generator resized to carry the full refrigeration load. |
| Monitoring, alarms and BMS integration | USD 94,000 | USD 91,000 | Priced as a named option in the RFQ, so it stayed comparable. |
| Commissioning, testing and training | USD 78,000 | USD 83,000 | Extra pull-down test after the second door change. |
| Design, project management and contingency | USD 112,000 | USD 115,000 | 5% contingency was drawn down almost entirely. |
| Total | USD 2,250,000 | USD 2,410,000 | +7.1% against approved budget |
Anonymised and generalised for buyer guidance. Costs are indicative planning data for a comparable project — not a quotation, benchmark or guaranteed outcome.
The 34-week timeline, brief to handover
Weeks 1–3
Design basis fixed before any supplier call
Throughput, product mix, entry temperatures and pallet targets converted into m², m³ and kW per zone. Nothing was sent out until the duty was written down.
Cooling load calculatorWeeks 4–5
Capacity and layout confirmed
Pallet positions, aisle widths and door count checked against the picking profile; mobile racking chosen for the chilled zone.
Warehouse capacity plannerWeeks 6–8
One identical RFQ issued to five suppliers
Same scope, same exclusion list, same response format and deadline. Monitoring, standby power and validation priced as named options.
RFQ builderWeeks 9–12
Bids returned and normalised
Raw spread 31%. After pricing exclusions back in, the real spread was 12% and two bids changed rank.
Refrigeration bid comparisonWeeks 13–15
Award and contracting
Technical compliance confirmed first; award on 10-year cost, not headline CAPEX. Performance guarantees written into the contract.
Weeks 16–20
Ground works
Sub-base failed on excavation; 3 weeks and USD 87K added. This is the single line that broke the budget.
Weeks 21–30
Envelope, plant install and power
Panels, doors and floors, then plant, pipework and the resized standby generator.
Weeks 31–32
Commissioning and pull-down testing
Both zones pulled down to setpoint and held under load; alarm escalation tested end to end.
Weeks 33–34
Performance test and handover
Guaranteed duty and energy figures verified against contract; O&M documentation and training completed.
Eight lessons learned
- Do a soil survey before the budget is approved, not after the contract is signed. One survey (about USD 6K) would have avoided a USD 87K variation and 3 lost weeks.
- Size standby power for the full refrigeration load from day one. A generator specified for lighting and IT is the most common late cost in cold room projects.
- Freeze the racking layout before ordering doors. Two late fast-action doors cost more than the whole monitoring package.
- Price exclusions, not just equipment. The cheapest raw bid was the third cheapest once exclusions were normalised.
- Name every option in the RFQ — monitoring, validation, training, spares. Options that are not named come back as variations.
- Write pull-down and hold tests into the contract as acceptance criteria. It gave the buyer leverage at handover with no argument.
- Judge suppliers on service coverage and spares, not only price. Response time was scored and it decided a close call.
- Keep 5–8% contingency and expect to use it. This project drew down 97% of its contingency on two civil and electrical lines.
Completed cold room project — FAQs
How ColdMatch Group works — independent B2B procurement and sourcing platform — ColdMatch Group is an independent B2B procurement and sourcing platform for industrial refrigeration, cold storage and cold-chain projects from USD $250K+, connecting buyers with qualified third-party suppliers, EPC contractors and independent financing providers.
Run your project the same way
ColdMatch helps buyers prepare cold chain RFQs and source suitable suppliers. Supplier matching and introductions are managed manually by ColdMatch after your brief is reviewed. Buyers are not charged, and ColdMatch does not manufacture equipment or provide financing directly.