A wooden crate and a poly bag with cardboard corners are not the same job, even when they hold the same lamp. One takes ten minutes to inspect and shelve. The other takes an hour, plus a dolly, plus two people. Your receiving warehouse knows this. Your client’s budget spreadsheet does not.
That gap is where many designers quietly lose money. You price the sofa, the sconces, the rug. You do not always price the three months the rug sits in a warehouse waiting for the tile guy to finish, or the fact that the crated dining table needs a forklift and the lamp does not.
This exact tension came up recently in the Interior Design Community, where a receiving warehouse owner posed the question from the other side of the counter. Designers send FF&E spreadsheets and ask for a quote, but rates depend on timing, packaging, and duration that nobody can know in advance. The answers from working designers landed on a real business decision that goes beyond this one warehouse relationship: how do you price when the cost is not fully predictable?
Why Receiving Costs Resist a Fixed Quote
Ask a warehouse for a flat number on receiving and storage before a single item has shipped, and you are asking them to guess. They do not know if your dining table arrives crated in wood or wrapped in a moving blanket. They do not know if your project stalls for four months waiting on a tile backorder, turning a two-week storage stint into a billable season.
That uncertainty is structural, not a sign of a disorganized vendor. Packaging type changes labor time. Item size changes space allocation. Timeline changes duration fees. A designer who wants a single fixed number before ordering anything is asking for a promise the warehouse cannot responsibly make.
The more useful move, several designers pointed out, is to get as much specificity as possible as early as possible, rather than waiting for a guess. One designer described going straight to the source with real project detail:
I speak to my receiving company, give them an inventory of the kinds of items we expect to be ordering, have them type me up a quote. From there I can at least share baseline what this expense will be.
@salvickstudio
The takeaway is not that every warehouse will hand over a precise number. It’s that a rough inventory, sent early, turns a guess into an estimate grounded in your actual project, rather than a generic rate sheet. That estimate still will not be exact, but it gives you a number you can defend to a client instead of one you pulled from a percentage you memorized years ago.
This is also worth remembering the next time you evaluate a new receiving partner. A warehouse that hesitates to give you even a rough range once they have your inventory is telling you something about how they generally price jobs. One that walks you through their formula, packaging assumptions, and all is one you can actually build a repeatable process around.
What a Bad Estimate Actually Costs You
Underestimate receiving and storage, and the shortfall does not disappear. It lands somewhere: your invoice to the client gets awkward, your margin absorbs it, or you have an uncomfortable conversation mid-project about a fee nobody budgeted for.
The complexity is real, and it compounds fast on high-value projects. Consider how granular one vendor relationship can get:
It really depends on the receiving warehouse but the one I work with charges 12% of my wholesale cost then holds for 3 months for free. And that covers inspection and delivery on install day. Anything past 3 months it’s $1 per piece per day.
@stantonhomedesign
12%, 3 free months, then a per-piece daily rate after that. That is not a number you can hold in your head across a dozen active projects with different vendors and different timelines. It is a formula, and formulas need to be applied deliberately, not estimated from memory when a client asks what their FF&E line item covers.
This is also where scope creep quietly enters through the back door. A project that runs four months behind schedule because of a permitting delay is not a receiving problem, but it becomes one. Storage fees that were never discussed at signing start accruing anyway, and the designer has to explain them. The same pattern shows up in mid-project scope creep more broadly: a cost nobody flagged at signing quietly becomes the designer’s problem to absorb or explain.
The clients who push back hardest on a surprise storage bill are rarely being unreasonable. They agreed on a number at signing, and now a different number has appeared with no explanation. That reaction is predictable and avoidable, but only if the designer has a documented method for handling the gap before it arises, rather than improvising an explanation after the invoice lands.
The Contingency Percentage Approach
The most common fix the community described is to build a contingency into the FF&E budget itself before storage costs are known. Instead of estimating a specific dollar amount, designers reserve a percentage of the total FF&E spend as a working cushion.
We always discuss up front those costs that we don’t have a full picture of and guide folks to reserve 15-18% of the budget for those costs.
@tyler_and_sash
A range like 15 to 18 percent gives the client a realistic number at signing without pretending to precision that doesn’t yet exist. It also does something less obvious: it sets the expectation early that receiving and storage are a real line item, part of the project’s pricing and profitability structure, not a surprise fee that appears at the end of the project.
Other designers push the percentage higher and pair it with a deposit structure rather than a passive reserve:
I take a 20% contingency deposit and invoice off of that. If it comes in more I send an invoice for the difference.
@m.i.n.t_interior_design
Collecting the contingency as a deposit rather than as a line item you hope will cover itself changes the cash flow dynamics in your favor. You are not fronting the receiving warehouse’s invoice and hoping the client reimburses you promptly. You are drawing from money already in hand, and only going back to the client if actual costs exceed what you collected.
The percentage itself matters less than picking one, disclosing it clearly, and applying it consistently. A designer who reserves 15 percent on one project and 25 percent on the next, without a clear rationale, invites the exact client pushback a contingency is supposed to prevent.
A consistent percentage also protects you internally. When every proposal uses the same range, you stop having to re-litigate the number project by project, and you build a track record you can point to if a client questions why the reserve exists at all. That track record becomes its own kind of leverage the next time a client asks you to shave the contingency down to make a budget look tighter on paper.
The Pass-Through Approach
Not every designer wants to estimate this cost at all. A second, distinct camp in the community skips the percentage guesswork entirely and treats receiving and storage as a direct pass-through, billed at cost with full transparency.
The warehouses I use have a mixture of price per pound & duration of storage. It’s very nuanced so I don’t estimate this cost. I explain in my contract that I pass the charge along to them and I don’t mark it up. I will show them the invoice from the receiving warehouse and they write the check.
@chandlerhelms.designs
This approach trades predictability for transparency. The client does not get an estimate up front, but they also never wonder if you padded the number. Showing the actual warehouse invoice removes the guesswork on both sides. It works especially well when the receiving structure is genuinely too variable to reduce to a single percentage, as is the case with per-pound and per-day formulas.
The tradeoff is that pass-through billing requires contract language that sets this expectation before the project starts, not after the first storage invoice lands in the client’s inbox. Without that groundwork, an unmarked-up pass-through fee can still feel like a surprise, even though it is the most transparent option on the table. The same question comes up around freight markup decisions, where designers face a similar choice between marking a cost up or passing it through at cost.
Pass-through billing also means you are only as reliable as your warehouse’s invoicing. If their bills are slow or unclear, that becomes your client-facing problem even though you did not create the delay. Designers who choose this route tend to build the habit of requesting itemized invoices from their receiver up front, so they never have to hand a client a bill they cannot fully explain.
Setting the Estimate Before the First Order Goes In
Whichever method you use, contingency percentage or pass-through, the estimate needs to exist before procurement begins, not after storage fees start accruing. A designer who waits until the first invoice from the warehouse to explain receiving costs to a client has already lost the trust advantage of disclosing it upfront.
One designer described building the estimate as a standard part of the proposal process, with the caveat built in from the start:
The company that I use (like most) have a formula for receiving and inspection costs. But it’s not as clear on storage a part for getting the first 30-60 days free depending on who you shop through. I tell my client that this is only an estimate and will likely change. But I at least calculate the receiving, inspection and delivery costs so that they can have a general idea on the front end. But they know that’s just a courtesy and if we go over storage etc that it’ll change.
@thomason_interiors
That framing, an estimate offered as a courtesy rather than a guarantee, does real work. It gives the client a concrete number to plan around while explicitly reserving the right to revise it if the timeline shifts. Clients rarely object to an estimate changing when they were told upfront it might. They object to a number that was presented as final and then wasn’t. It’s the same principle behind structuring a non-refundable retainer: collect a clear amount upfront, disclose exactly what it covers, and draw from it rather than negotiating after the fact.
Picking a Method and Putting It in Writing
There is no single correct percentage or formula here, and the community’s answers make that clear. What separates designers who handle this well from designers who eat the cost every time is not the number they land on. It’s whether they picked a method, disclosed it before ordering began, and applied it consistently across projects.
If your receiving relationships are relatively standard, formula-driven, and stable, a contingency percentage baked into the proposal gives clients predictability and gives you a deposit to draw from. If your receiving costs are genuinely too variable to estimate accurately, a disclosed pass-through with visible invoices protects your credibility even without an upfront number.
Either way, the fix is not a better guess. It’s a documented policy your client agrees to before the first item ships, so that when the warehouse bill for a crated table and a three-month storage stint finally lands, it confirms what everyone already expected instead of starting a new negotiation.
Find IDC content more easily in Google
Set Interior Design Community as a preferred source in your Google settings and we’ll show up more often when you search. It takes less than a minute.
Add IDC as a preferred source →
Electrical Scope of Work: What Actually Belongs to the Interior Designer?
Specification Without Procurement: How Should Interior Designers Charge?
