The cost schedules
Immediate Repairs Schedule Template & Example
Last updated 2026-08-15
The immediate repairs schedule is the part of a property condition report with direct financial consequences. On an agency loan the items on it are the items that get escrowed, so a line added carelessly costs the borrower real money at closing, and a line omitted carelessly transfers a hazard to someone who paid for the assessment specifically to avoid it.
Two disciplines make the schedule defensible. Every line must trace to an observation in the body of the report — a schedule with an item found nowhere else is unreviewable. And every line must show its basis: what was counted, what was measured, what was assumed, and where the unit cost came from.
The third discipline is vocabulary, and it is the one that catches people out. There is no universal set of repair categories. Fannie Mae Form 4099 splits Immediate Repairs into Life Safety Items, Critical Repair Items and Deferred Maintenance Items; Freddie Mac's Multifamily Seller/Servicer Guide Chapter 62 uses Critical Repairs, Priority Repairs and PR-90 Repairs; E2018-24 segregates opinions of cost into immediate costs and short-term costs, with long-term costs optional and shown separately. The same building produces three differently shaped schedules depending on whose scope you are working under, so the schedule has to say which one it used.
The example below is a full schedule for the fictional Bellwether Commons assessment, including one item priced on an assumed quantity because the true quantity could not be established on site. That line is the useful one to study, because it is the situation every assessor meets and the one templates never illustrate.
Jurisdiction
Written primarily against US practice: the ASTM E2018 baseline, agency scopes such as Fannie Mae Form 4099, and — where a page says so explicitly — California statute. Client scope governs any individual engagement and may expand or reduce what is described here. State and local inspection obligations differ, and licensure requirements for the work described vary by state. Outside the US, treat the structure as transferable and the standards and statutes as not.
Immediate Repairs Schedule template
Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.
When to use this document
- You have identified conditions requiring attention now — hazards, active deterioration, or code violations — and the client scope calls for opinions of cost.
- You are producing a report for a lender, where the schedule will become an escrow or a required repair schedule.
- Not for items that are simply near the end of their service life without presenting a current problem. Those belong in the replacement reserves schedule.
Worked example
Fictional. The immediate repairs schedule from the Bellwether Commons assessment — 132 units, eleven two-storey buildings, built 1987, Columbus, Ohio — site visit 4 March 2026, costs on a March 2026 basis. One line is carried on an assumed quantity because the extent of stair framing rot could not be established without removing finishes.
Schedule Header
Property: Bellwether Commons, 4400 Ridgeline Drive, Columbus, Ohio. Site visit: 4 March 2026. Cost basis date: March 2026. Assessor: M. Reyes. Prepared under the client scope agreed with Northbank Capital, a balance-sheet lender, following the baseline described in ASTM E2018-24. This is not an agency assessment and Form 4099 does not apply to it; where the two would diverge, the divergence is noted. Costs are opinions of cost formed on the basis date shown — E2018-24's term is opinions of cost, and describes them as preliminary, order-of-magnitude budgetary projections — using local contractor pricing where obtained and published regional cost data otherwise. They are not bids, and they carry no allowance for the pricing a specific contractor may offer.
Qualification Criteria Used
An item is carried on this schedule if, in the assessor's judgement, leaving it in its observed condition presents a potential for injury to residents, staff or visitors; or the condition is actively deteriorating such that deferral materially increases the cost of remedy; or the condition is a violation of a code provision enforced at this property. Items near the end of their service life but currently performing as intended are not carried here; they appear in the replacement reserves schedule.
No universal definition of a life-safety item was applied, because the client scope does not supply one — the items identified as life-safety below are those which, in the assessor's judgement, create a potential hazard increasing the possibility of personal injury. Fannie Mae takes the same position for its own work, declining to define Life Safety in Form 4099 and relying on the consultant's professional opinion unless the item is a life-safety violation under federal, state or local law, ordinance or code.
The priority labels used below map to Form 4099's categories as follows, in case this property is later financed on agency debt: 'life safety, immediate' corresponds to a Life Safety Item; 'high' with a date corresponds to a Critical Repair Item, which Form 4099 expects to be addressed immediately or within six months of the report date; an item at or past its estimated useful life needing attention within the year corresponds to a Deferred Maintenance Item. Under Form 4099 the accessibility question would also change shape — repairs needed to comply with the ADA or the Fair Housing Act must be carried as Critical Repair Items, where E2018-24 treats accessibility as an out-of-scope consideration and this assessment did not survey it.
Where information was received from property staff about a condition that was not visually obvious, it was investigated and is reported.
Line Items
1. Exterior stairs, buildings 2, 5, 8 and 11 — stringer and tread rot. Observed directly at all four buildings; movement under load observed at building 8, east stair. Remedy: remove and replace stair stringers, treads and handrails at the affected stairs; make good adjacent framing as exposed. Quantity: 8 stair runs (assumed — see assumptions below). Unit cost: $7,625 per run. Extended: $61,000. Priority: life safety, immediate.
2. Building 3 and 7 roof valleys — failed patch repairs at valley flashings. Observed directly; recurring leaks at these two buildings reported by the maintenance manager and corroborated by staining observed in two second-floor units. Remedy: temporary repair of valley flashings to maintain weather protection pending the roof replacement carried in reserves year one. Quantity: 4 valleys. Unit cost: $1,850. Extended: $7,400. Priority: high, within 60 days.
3. Clubhouse — emergency lighting units non-functional. Observed directly: 3 of 5 units failed to illuminate on test of the push-to-test button. Remedy: replace failed units. Quantity: 3. Unit cost: $420. Extended: $1,260. Priority: life safety, immediate.
4. Site — trip hazards at concrete walkways. Observed directly: 14 locations with vertical displacement estimated at 3/4 inch or greater, concentrated on the walkway serving buildings 6 through 9. Remedy: grind or replace displaced sections. Quantity: 14 locations. Unit cost: $340. Extended: $4,760. Priority: high, within 90 days.
5. Buildings 4 and 9 — GFCI protection absent at exterior receptacles. Observed directly at 6 receptacles. Remedy: replace with GFCI devices. Quantity: 6. Unit cost: $185. Extended: $1,110. Priority: life safety, immediate. Branch wiring at the six receptacles opened was observed and photographed as copper; no aluminium branch wiring was observed anywhere the wiring was visible.
6. Pool enclosure — self-closing gate hardware failed at north gate. Observed directly; gate did not latch on release. Remedy: replace closer and latch hardware. Quantity: 1. Unit cost: $890. Extended: $890. Priority: life safety, immediate.
7. Building 8 — domestic water heater relief valve discharge terminating above finished floor without a receptor. Observed directly. Remedy: extend discharge piping to an approved termination. Quantity: 1. Unit cost: $640. Extended: $640. Priority: high, within 90 days.
8. Site lighting — 9 pole-mounted fixtures inoperative at the time of the evening drive-through. Observed directly. Remedy: lamp or ballast replacement as required; investigate the two fixtures on the same circuit at the northeast drive aisle. Quantity: 9. Unit cost: $310. Extended: $2,790. Priority: moderate, within 120 days.
Reporting Threshold
The client scope sets no cost threshold and directs that any condition presenting a potential hazard be reported regardless of amount, so all eight items are carried. Five of them — items 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 — are below $3,000 individually and total $6,690 between them. Under an unmodified E2018-24 baseline those five would be omitted: the guide's default threshold is $3,000, and its aggregation rule catches only more than four separate like items below the threshold that collectively exceed $10,000. These five are neither like items nor collectively over $10,000. They are carried here because the client asked for them and because three of them are life-safety items, and the departure from the baseline is stated so nobody has to reverse-engineer it.
Assumptions and Quantity Basis
Item 1, stair runs: rot was observed at the stringer-to-landing connection at four buildings, at six stair runs which were opened to view by removing loose trim already detached. Each of these buildings has two exterior stair runs of identical construction, age and exposure, and the two runs not opened at buildings 5 and 11 exhibited the same surface indicators — staining at the base of the stringer and soft wood on probing — as those that were. The quantity is therefore carried at 8 runs rather than the 6 confirmed, on the assumption that identical construction under identical exposure has deteriorated similarly. If only the 6 confirmed runs require replacement, this line falls to $45,750, the subtotal falls to $64,600, and the total after contingency and soft costs falls to approximately $79,500. If rot extends into the adjacent floor framing at any building, which could not be determined without removing finishes, the cost of that building rises materially and is not carried here. The assumption is stated so a reader can price the alternatives rather than accept or reject the line.
Item 4, walkway locations: counted, not sampled. All site walkways were traversed.
Unit costs for items 1, 2 and 4 were obtained by telephone from two local contractors during the week following the site visit. Unit costs for items 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are from published regional cost data adjusted to the Columbus market, and are of a magnitude where the difference between sources is immaterial to the total.
Excluded from This Schedule
Asphalt paving: extensive alligator cracking was observed across the northern drive aisle, and the paving is at the end of its service life. It is carried in the replacement reserves schedule in years two and three rather than here, because in its observed condition it remains serviceable and presents no hazard. Roof replacement: the original shingle roofs are past their service life and are carried in reserves year one, with only the temporary valley repair carried here. Unit interior finishes: worn carpet and dated cabinetry were observed in several units; these are cosmetic and are excluded from both schedules. Electrical panel replacement: the manufacturer labels in both unit panels opened had been painted over and were illegible, so the panels could not be identified to a make and model and no repair for them is carried on this schedule. No allowance is carried either. A per-panel figure would have to be invented — the panel type, and therefore the work, is unknown — and an invented figure on this schedule is escrowed as though it had been measured. The item is reported as an open matter with a recommendation that an electrician identify the panels across a sample of buildings before closing, at a cost that is trivial against what it resolves.
What makes that question urgent rather than academic: on a Fannie Mae loan it would not be left open at all. Form 4099.G, as updated on 28 January 2026, names four families of recalled or hazardous panels — Zinsco and GTE-Sylvania, Challenger, Bulldog and ITE-Pushmatic, and Federal Pacific Stab-Lok — requires that all panels at a property be evaluated against that list, and says any panel on it should be recommended for replacement as an Immediate Repair, leaving only the Life Safety, Critical or Deferred Maintenance classification to the consultant. The same update makes repair of aluminium branch wiring by one of the three methods the Consumer Product Safety Commission recommends — complete rewiring, or copper pig-tailing at the receptacles with COPALUM crimp connectors or with AlumiConn connectors — a required Immediate Repair, and Form 4099.G requires every PCA report to state the branch wiring type observed and photographed. That wiring observation is recorded at item 5 above. The panel identification is not, and that is the gap this schedule is declaring rather than pricing.
Total and Contingency
Subtotal of items 1 through 8: $79,850. Contingency at 15 percent: $11,978. Design, permitting and administrative allowance at 8 percent: $6,388. Total immediate repairs: $98,216, carried in the report as approximately $98,200. Note that the executive summary figure of $118,400 in an earlier draft included the roof valley work at full replacement rather than temporary repair; the figure in this schedule supersedes it. The contingency is shown separately and is not distributed into line items, so a reader adjusting a single line does not have to unpick an embedded allowance to do it.
Neither percentage is a convention and neither should be copied out of this example. No standard or agency scope used in this library establishes a contingency or soft-cost percentage for an immediate repairs schedule: E2018-24 sets a reporting threshold and lists the cost sources a consultant may draw on, and is silent on contingency; Form 4099 sets repair categories and completion deadlines, not markups. The 15 percent here reflects one line carried on an assumed quantity and one remedy whose extent cannot be known until finishes are removed. The 8 percent reflects that four of the eight items need a permit in this jurisdiction. Both are the assessor's judgement about this property on this day, disclosed as percentages precisely so a reader can substitute their own.
Section-by-section guide
What each section is for, what a good one contains, and where they typically go wrong.
1.Schedule Header
Property, date of site visit, assessor, evaluation basis, and the cost basis date. Costs are opinions formed on a date, in a market — a schedule reused twelve months later without a new basis date is quietly wrong.
2.Qualification Criteria Used
State the test you applied to decide what counts as immediate, and name the scope it comes from. On a Fannie Mae multifamily loan the categories are set for you: Form 4099 defines Immediate Repair Items as items which, in the consultant's professional judgement, would in their observed condition have the potential to cause injury, illness or death to employees, residents or guests, and divides them into Life Safety Items, Critical Repair Items — typically addressed immediately or within six months of the report date — and Deferred Maintenance Items, non-recurring capital items at or past their estimated useful life, typically within twelve months. Fannie Mae deliberately does not define Life Safety, relying on the consultant's professional opinion unless the item is a life-safety violation under federal, state or local law, ordinance or code. Form 4099 also directs that repairs needed to comply with the ADA, the Fair Housing Act and similar state and local laws be carried as a Critical Repair Item — worth noting, because E2018-24 treats accessibility as an out-of-scope consideration of the baseline assessment. None of this binds a consultant working outside a Fannie Mae loan. Say which vocabulary you used and where it came from.
3.Line Items
One row per item: location, observed deficiency, the basis of the observation, recommended remedy, quantity, unit cost, extended cost, and priority. Keep the observation and the remedy in separate columns. A reader who disagrees with your remedy should still be able to use your observation.
4.Reporting Threshold
Small items are a scope question, not a judgement call. E2018-24 describes a default threshold: opinions of cost below $3,000 are omitted from the report unless the user and the consultant modify it, with an aggregation rule that pulls in more than four separate like items below the threshold which collectively exceed $10,000. It is a baseline the engagement can change, not a rule — the guide mandates nothing. Freddie Mac's Chapter 62 applies a $3,000 per-item threshold to Deferred Maintenance within its Priority Repairs category. If your client scope sets a different threshold, or none, say so — otherwise a reader cannot tell whether an absent item was not found or simply not big enough to print.
5.Assumptions and Quantity Basis
Where a quantity was extrapolated from a sample or assumed, say so and give the assumption. This is the difference between a number a reader can adjust and a number they must either accept or discard entirely.
6.Excluded from This Schedule
Items considered and deliberately not included, with the reason. This short section prevents the most common review question — 'why isn't the parking lot on here?' — and demonstrates that the omission was a decision rather than an oversight.
7.Total and Contingency
The total, plus any contingency or soft-cost allowance, shown separately rather than folded into line items. A contingency buried inside unit costs makes every line wrong in order to make the total right. There is no established percentage for either: E2018-24 sets a reporting threshold and lists the cost sources a consultant may use, and says nothing about contingency; Form 4099 sets categories and deadlines, not markups. Whatever percentages you apply are your own judgement for that property, so state them as such rather than presenting them as convention.
Common mistakes
The failure modes that show up most often when this document is reviewed later.
Putting an end-of-life item on the immediate schedule because it is old.
Age is not a defect. A twenty-year-old roof that is not leaking belongs in reserves. Moving it to immediate repairs escrows money against a condition that does not yet exist, and the borrower is entitled to ask which observation supports it.
Hiding a contingency inside unit costs.
It makes every line wrong so the total can be right, and it prevents a reader from adjusting one item without corrupting the rest. Show it as its own line with its percentage and basis.
Extrapolating a quantity without saying so.
Extrapolation is normal and often unavoidable. Presenting an extrapolated quantity as a counted one is what turns a defensible estimate into a misstatement — state the confirmed count, the assumed count, and what the total becomes under each.
Removing an item because the owner fixed it after the site visit.
The report describes the property at the time of the visit. Fannie Mae's PCA FAQ is explicit: unless the consultant reinspects and confirms the work, the item stays on the consultant's schedule and it is the lender's decision whether to exclude it from escrow.
Carrying a contingency percentage because you saw it in another report.
No standard and no agency scope sets one, so the number is yours and you own it. A percentage inherited from a template is unexplainable the moment a client asks what it covers on this property, which is the only question they ever ask about it.
Using one client's repair categories on another client's report.
Life Safety, Critical Repair and Deferred Maintenance are Fannie Mae's Form 4099 categories. Freddie Mac's Chapter 62 uses Critical, Priority and PR-90 Repairs. E2018-24 uses immediate and short-term costs. Applying the wrong set silently changes which items appear and when they are due.
Writing 'various locations' in the location column.
Nobody can price, verify or complete a repair at 'various locations'. If it is genuinely widespread, give the count and the buildings; if it was sampled, say so in the assumptions.
Questions
- What qualifies as an immediate repair?
- It depends on the client scope, which is why the schedule should state the test it used. On a Fannie Mae multifamily loan, Form 4099 defines Immediate Repair Items as items which in the consultant's professional judgement would in their observed condition have the potential to cause injury, illness or death to employees, residents or guests, split into Life Safety Items, Critical Repair Items and Deferred Maintenance Items. Fannie Mae does not define Life Safety itself; its PCA FAQ points to the MBA's description of a Life Safety Item as a visually obvious construction or design defect or deferred maintenance condition creating a potential hazard, and otherwise relies on the consultant's professional opinion unless the item is a life-safety violation under law, ordinance or code. Off an agency loan none of that binds you — but a stated test does more for a reader than a borrowed one.
- Is there a minimum cost below which an item should not be listed?
- E2018-24 describes one, and it is a default rather than a rule: opinions of cost below $3,000 are omitted unless the user and the consultant modify the threshold, with an aggregation rule that pulls in more than four separate like items below it which collectively exceed $10,000. Freddie Mac's Chapter 62 applies a $3,000 per-item threshold to Deferred Maintenance within Priority Repairs. Thresholds are a scope decision, so whichever you apply, print it — a reader otherwise cannot tell a small item that was not found from one that was not printed.
- Should immediate repairs be included in the replacement reserves as well?
- No. An item belongs on one schedule or the other. Double-carrying inflates the total and, on an agency loan, can result in the same work being escrowed twice.
- How precise should the costs be?
- They are opinions of cost, not bids, and should be presented as such — round them, state the basis date, and name the source. E2018-24's defined term is opinions of cost, described as preliminary, order-of-magnitude budgetary projections; 'opinion of probable cost' is industry vernacular borrowed from cost-estimating practice rather than the standard's language. False precision to the dollar invites a reader to treat the figure as a quotation.
- What if the client asks me to remove an item?
- Distinguish a factual correction from a request. If the item rests on a mistaken observation, correct it and say what changed. If the observation stands, the item stands — the schedule is the assessor's professional opinion, and adjustments to what a lender escrows are the lender's to make on its own schedules.
The blank template
Exactly what is in the Word download, so you can see the structure before deciding whether you want it.
Schedule Header
Qualification Criteria Used
Line Items
- Location — building, elevation, floor, unit number where applicable
- Basis — observed directly, reported by management, or from a document
- Quantity — counted, measured, or assumed (say which)
- Unit cost source — E2018-24 lists six the consultant may draw on: user-provided unit costs, the owner's historical costs, the consultant's own cost database, commercially published cost data, pricing from contractors, vendors or suppliers, and other sources the consultant judges appropriate
Reporting Threshold
Assumptions and Quantity Basis
Excluded from This Schedule
Total and Contingency
Download this template
Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.
Sources
Related templates
Property Condition Report Template & Example (ASTM E2018)
A complete property condition report template with a filled-in example and section-by-section guidance, following the ASTM E2018 baseline. Free Word download, no signup.
Replacement Reserves Schedule Template & Example
A replacement reserves schedule template with a filled-in example: components, ages, remaining useful life, and the assumptions behind each figure. Free Word download, no signup.
PCA Executive Summary Template & Example
An executive summary template for a property condition report, with a filled-in example and guidance on what belongs in it and what does not. Free Word download, no signup.
This page is a documentation aid — not engineering advice, not legal advice, and not a substitute for the standard or client scope your engagement runs under. A template cannot tell you what your assessment requires. The worked example describes a fictional property, and its costs, quantities and service lives are illustrative only.