_edited.png)
CASE STUDY
BOLSINGER REBAR – MAKING THE CASH DEMANDS OF A BUSY SHOP VISIBLE
For Bolsinger Rebar, an awarded project created both an opportunity and an obligation to fund materials and production before the cash cycle was complete. GTI worked with Cory Bolsinger to bring backlog, customer deposits, steel purchases, and shop timing into the same planning conversation.
The management challenge
A backlog total can look reassuring while saying little about the timing of usable cash. Missing delivery dates, incomplete receivables information, or future costs absent from the model can make a forecast too optimistic. GTI’s contribution was to challenge those inputs and connect the model with what the shop and purchasing decisions would actually require. The usefulness of the model depended on the timing and completeness of the operating information behind it.
How GTI’s support was divided
From discussion to practical follow-through
Asking what the backlog still costs to complete
Sam and Cory examined why future receipts alone were not enough. Awarded jobs also carried steel, labor, and other completion obligations. They agreed to add estimated job costs and gross margins to backlog reporting. The key improvement in the planning approach was to recognize future commitments before they appeared as invoices in accounts payable.
Reconciling the moving parts of the cash forecast
The discussions identified missing job dates and differences in receivables information. On September 1, Cory supplied open purchase orders and directed the team to backlog detail. Deposits also needed separate treatment to avoid counting the same cash again as a future receipt. The forecast was a working management tool under correction, not a finished model whose reliability could be assumed.
Making production measures more useful
GTI helped distinguish production from shipping so a delayed shipment would not automatically make a productive week look weak. The discussion covered a high-level record of material entering production, being manufactured, shipping, and being discarded. That offered a manageable starting point for shop visibility, with more detailed machine-level measurement left for later work.
Why the work belonged together
GTI’s contribution was to make growth financeable in the planning process: ask when money arrives, when steel must be purchased, and what production can actually deliver. The owner had a recurring partner to work through those decisions and challenge incomplete assumptions.
Can the business fund the work it has already won?
The following comparison summarizes the options and trade-offs raised in the engagement, including the considerations behind each choice and its status at the time of review.
How GTI helped evaluate the choice
The scenario discussion was about when money becomes available relative to when it must be spent. An order can be profitable on paper and still require funding before shipment. Earlier deposits may help, but they must be represented correctly in the forecast. Including open purchase orders and remaining job costs makes that trade-off more visible without pretending that the model creates cash by itself.
The operating detail behind the decision
The same transaction can appear in several records, which is why reconciliation mattered. A customer deposit, the remaining invoice, and a backlog entry should describe one underlying job consistently. Open purchase orders add another view of obligations still ahead. GTI helped frame the forecast as a connected operating model that required reliable inputs, rather than a summary of hopeful receipts.
What the owner could use from the discussion
The discussion put receipt timing, material commitments, production schedule, and remaining job costs into a single decision. That gave the owner a way to examine which constraint required attention first, what information was still missing, and whether the next commitment fit the business’s ability to carry it out.
What the engagement demonstrates
Results and completed work
The engagement produced a delivered forecast under active correction, a clearer list of missing inputs, and agreement on the need to treat deposits and completion costs properly. Production and shipping were separated conceptually to improve the usefulness of operating measures. A revised deposit policy was discussed, but sustained collection improvements were not established.
The owner-support dimension
Cory’s follow-up with purchase orders and backlog information shows the owner participating in the correction process. GTI’s support gave him a recurring place to question assumptions and connect financial planning to shop reality. That involvement matters when purchasing, production, and collections decisions compete for attention. The work gave financial and production questions a shared place for review and follow-through.
Where the work continued
The next measure of success would be the quality of the reconciled inputs and the usefulness of the forecast in recurring decisions. This case demonstrates CFO and operations support during working-capital pressure. It does not claim that every forecast issue had been resolved or that a completed funding solution was in place.
​
Case basis: selected client meetings and supporting engagement records through September 2026. Owner-reported activity and planning options are identified in the text. The case describes the work and decisions recorded during this period.