Análise comparativa entre custos unitários tabelados e apropriados em revestimentos de porcelanato

Abstract

This study presents a comparative analysis between tabulated direct unit costs, obtained from the SINAPI and SEINFRA databases, and field-appropriated costs for the execution of porcelain tile floor installations. The research was conducted in a commercial hospital construction project in the city of Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil, through daily monitoring of crew productivity, recording of material consumption (porcelain tiles and adhesive mortar), and analysis of invoices and supporting documents. Three tile formats were evaluated: 60×60 cm (3,600 cm²), 120×60 cm (7,200 cm²), and 120×120 cm (14,400 cm²). The results indicate significant variations: for the 60×60 cm format, appropriated costs were, on average, 17.79% (SINAPI) and 13.97% (SEINFRA) lower than the tabulated costs, with greater discrepancies observed in large areas (>10 m²), where the difference reached 23.40%. For the 120×60 cm format, divergences averaged 6.48% lower than SINAPI values and 3.87% higher than SEINFRA values, influenced by higher material consumption and lower labor productivity. For the 120×120 cm format, appropriated costs were 12.24% (SINAPI) and 14.59% (SEINFRA) lower, reflecting greater efficiency in large-format installations. The appropriated labor productivity indices revealed unit production rates significantly higher than those tabulated by SINAPI, exceeding them by up to 290.10%, and higher than those standardized by SEINFRA, surpassing them by up to 361.18%. Material consumption was higher; however, this was offset by unit prices negotiated on-site. It is concluded that standardized cost compositions underestimate technical coefficients and overestimate actual costs, indicating that local cost appropriation is essential to improve budget accuracy and mitigate financial risks