Blog

Why construction’s back office is the last big paper problem in the industry — and what changes on the day you finally fix it. Construction is one of the last major industries still running its back office on paper. While software has transformed almost every part of a jobsite — from BIM to project management to field productivity — the invoice that follows the work often lands on a controller’s desk the same way it did in 1995: as a stack of PDFs, printed emails, and hand-signed approvals routed through inter-office mail. That gap is expensive. It slows cash flow, buries costs, and turns month-end into a scavenger hunt. AP automation closes it — and in construction specifically, the payoff is larger than in almost any other industry. Here’s how it works, why it matters, and what the return actually looks like. The Why: Construction AP Is a Category of Its Own Generic AP automation tools were built for a simpler world — one invoice, one approver, one GL code. Construction breaks that model on the first invoice. A single subcontractor bill in construction can involve: Now multiply that by hundreds of invoices per week, spread across dozens of active jobs and remote field managers who don’t sit near a scanner. The result is what most construction finance leaders describe as “AP by exception”: every invoice is a little different, and every one needs a human to figure out where it goes. Automation isn’t about eliminating people from AP. It’s about eliminating the parts of AP that don’t need people — so the people you have can focus on the exceptions, the vendors, and the cash decisions that actually move the business. The How: What “AP Automation” Actually Does Modern AP automation in construction is less a single tool and more a stack of connected capabilities. A well-designed platform handles the full lifecycle of an invoice. 1. Capture Invoices arrive through whatever channel vendors already use — email, vendor portals, paper mail, EDI. The system ingests them automatically, extracts header and line-item data using OCR and machine learning, and matches vendors against your master list. No more manual keying, no more “who forwarded this?” The best systems learn from your corrections. If a particular vendor always breaks their invoice into three cost codes, the platform starts suggesting that split on its own. 2. Coding This is where construction diverges hardest from generic AP. The platform routes each invoice to the right project, phase, and cost code — either by learned rules, PO matching, or by pushing it to the person who knows (usually the project manager in the field). Field users get a mobile-friendly view that shows only the jobs they own, so coding takes seconds instead of a call to the office. 3. Approval Routing Approval chains in construction are rarely a straight line. They branch by dollar amount, job, division, vendor, or type of work. Good AP automation lets you configure those rules once and then routes every invoice automatically — with escalations for anything stuck too long. Approvers act from email or mobile; nothing gets lost in someone’s inbox for two weeks. 4. Compliance For subcontractor invoices, payment shouldn’t go out until compliance is clean. The platform checks lien waiver status, insurance expiration, and any prevailing-wage requirements before the invoice moves to payment. Missing documents trigger automatic vendor requests. This alone eliminates a category of risk that has cost general contractors millions in bond claims and mechanic’s liens. 5. ERP Sync Once approved and coded, invoices flow into the accounting system in the exact format it expects — jobs, phases, cost codes, retention, tax, all in the right fields. No re-keying, no reconciliation errors, no month-end “why doesn’t AP match GL” investigations. 6. Payment Some platforms stop at the accounting sync; the stronger ones handle payment too — ACH, check, or virtual card — with the same approval controls, and with rebates on card volume that often cover the software cost by themselves. The ROI: What the Numbers Actually Look Like CFOs don’t buy AP automation because it’s modern. They buy it because the math works. Here’s where the return shows up. $12–$40 Cost per manually processed invoice $2–$5 Cost per automated invoice 15–30 days Manual cycle time, invoice to payment 3–7 days Automated cycle time Cost Per Invoice Industry benchmarks put the fully-loaded cost of processing a paper invoice at $12–$40, once you count labor, paper, storage, and errors. Best-in-class automated processes bring that to $2–$5. For a mid-sized contractor processing 3,000 invoices a month, that’s a swing of roughly $300,000–$1.2M per year in AP labor alone. Cycle Time Manual AP cycles in construction routinely run 15–30 days from invoice receipt to payment. Automated cycles run 3–7 days. That compression does two things: Error Reduction Manual data entry has a well-documented error rate of 1–3% per field. On an invoice with 15 fields, that compounds fast. Automated capture reduces errors to a fraction of a percent — and when errors do occur, they surface immediately instead of at month-end. Compliance and Risk The financial cost of a missed lien waiver or expired COI can dwarf everything else on this list. One unnoticed lapse can trigger a mechanic’s lien, a bond claim, or a payment held up on a $2M draw. Automating compliance checks isn’t a productivity gain — it’s insurance. Visibility and Cash Forecasting Perhaps the largest — and least measured — return is decision quality. When every invoice is captured, coded, and visible in real time, your job cost reports are actually current. Your cash forecast reflects real commitments, not last week’s guess. Your executives can see which projects are trending over budget while there’s still time to act. Ask any construction CFO what they’d pay for that, and the software price becomes a rounding error. What to Look For in a Construction-Native Platform Not every “AP automation” tool understands construction. If you’re evaluating options, the questions that separate serious platforms from repurposed generic ones are: The wrong platform will save you time on data entry and cost you time everywhere

Most construction contractors track job costs obsessively while the work is happening. But the moment the crew walks off site, financial discipline tends to follow them out the door — and invoices keep arriving for weeks afterward with no one watching the gate. What Is the Job Close Gap? The job close gap is the period between when a construction job is marked complete and when all related invoices have been fully processed, approved, and posted to the ERP. For most contractors, this gap is 30 to 60 days. For some, it’s longer. During that window, vendor invoices keep arriving. Subcontractor final billings come in. Material suppliers reconcile their accounts. And someone in AP — usually one person — is responsible for matching all of it back to a job that, from the field’s perspective, is already closed. 💡 The job close gap isn’t a rare edge case — it’s the normal post-job reality for almost every construction contractor. The difference between companies that manage it well and those that don’t comes down to whether their AP workflow was built to handle it. How It Plays Out in Vista, Foundation & QuickBooks Shops 1. Job closes in Vista or Foundation The PM marks the job complete in Vista, Foundation, or QuickBooks. ERP is updated. Field crew moves to the next project. From the operations side, it’s done. 2. Vendor invoices keep arriving — for weeks Material suppliers, subcontractors, and equipment vendors submit final invoices 15, 30, sometimes 60 days after job close. Each one needs to be matched back to the right job code. 3. AP processes manually — sometimes against the wrong job Without real-time ERP validation, invoices get coded against stale job data. The PM who approved the work is already gone. Nobody catches the mismatch until month-end — or later. 4. Final job cost report is wrong before it’s printed Late invoices, miscoded entries, and unapproved holds all distort the final job cost. Leadership makes decisions based on a number that doesn’t reflect reality. 5. The gap becomes invisible — until it compounds One job with a messy close is manageable. Ten jobs with unresolved post-close invoices running simultaneously creates a cash flow fog that’s very hard to see through. The Real Cost of the Gap The job close gap creates three distinct financial risks that most contractors underestimate: ❌ Without Controlled AP Close ❌Late invoices coded to wrong jobs❌Final job costs inaccurate by close-out❌Cash flow projections built on stale data❌Month-end takes weeks to reconcile❌Vendor disputes with no paper trail❌AP team overwhelmed chasing approvals ✅ With Real-Time AP Automation ✅AP team processes without chasing anyone✅Every invoice validates against live ERP data✅Job codes verified before approval — not after✅Cash flow visibility current within 15 minutes✅Month-end close runs on schedule✅Full audit trail on every invoice decision 60 Days average post-close invoice window for mid-size contractors 76% Reduction in cost per invoice with automated AP 15 min ERP sync time — Vista, Foundation & QuickBooks What Closing the Gap Actually Looks Like The job close gap isn’t closed by working faster — it’s closed by building a workflow that catches late invoices automatically and validates them against current ERP data, regardless of when they arrive. When Beiing Human connects to Vista or Foundation in real time, every invoice that arrives after job close still validates against live job data. If the job code is closed, the system flags it before approval. If the cost code doesn’t match, it routes for review. Nothing slips through because a PM is no longer on-site to answer the phone. The approval workflow continues to run — automatically routing by job ID, enforcing management sign-off, and syncing approved invoices back to the ERP within 15 minutes. The gap doesn’t disappear; invoices still arrive late. But they get handled correctly, every time, without anyone chasing them down. Signs Your Team Is Living in the Gap Check how many of these apply to your last 3 job close-outs: If three or more of these apply, your AP workflow has a job close gap — and it’s costing you more than just time. How Beiing Human Closes It Beiing Human’s AP automation platform connects directly to Trimble Vista, Foundation, QuickBooks, and other leading construction ERPs with a real-time, two-way integration — so your AP process doesn’t pause when a job closes. Invoices continue to route, validate, and post correctly, regardless of project status or which ERP your team runs on. For Vista contractors, Beiing Human is available directly through Trimble Marketplace — the official hub for trusted Trimble technology partners — making it simple to find, evaluate, and connect without a lengthy procurement process. Job close is not when AP stops — it’s when AP gets harder. The invoices keep coming, the PMs are gone, and the ERP data is moving on without them. The contractors who close the gap cleanly are the ones who built a workflow that handles late invoices automatically, validates them in real time, and gives leadership accurate job cost data they can actually trust. Every job you close without that workflow is a job where profitability is a guess. Ready to Close the Gap on Every Job? See how Beiing Human keeps AP accurate after job close — for Vista, Foundation, and QuickBooks contractors. Visit Trimble Marketplace Contact Beiing Human

1,014 real tasks. 35 simulated systems. One iron rule: the AI never moves money. Here’s why we built it and what the first results tell us about how far AI agents are from replacing your AP clerk. Every vendor selling AI to construction CFOs has a demo. And every demo looks brilliant: the agent reads an invoice, codes it to the right job and cost code, and queues the payment — all in under a minute. The room claps. Then the pilot starts. The agent miscodes a $14,000 concrete bill to the wrong phase. It approves a duplicate. It initiates a payment against a subcontractor whose COI expired last week. Nobody claps, and the CFO pulls the plug. The problem isn’t that AI agents are bad. It’s that we have no rigorous way to measure how good they are at the actual work. So we built one. What is CFAgentBench? CFAgentBench is a reproducible, open-source benchmark and simulated environment designed to test whether an AI agent can do the real day-to-day work of a construction finance team — across the actual software stack contractors use. 1,014 Task specifications across 8 domains 35 Simulated applications (ERP, PM, bank, payroll…) 278 Tasks with money-movement guards $5.14 Cost of the entire 3-model, 600-run sweep The tasks aren’t synthetic trivia. Nearly 600 seed from real CFMA Connection Cafe threads — the exact pain points construction controllers discuss among themselves. Others come from Finance at the Jobsite podcast episodes, Beiing Human customer emails and Fathom calls, NAHB builder forums, and public standards like AIA G702/G703 and WH-347 certified payroll. Why Construction Finance Needed Its Own Benchmark Existing AI benchmarks like WebArena, SWE-bench, and AppWorld do excellent work in their domains. But construction finance has properties that make generic benchmarks nearly useless for it. Five Realities That Make Construction Finance Harder for AI Agents 1 State Isn’t Always Editable PM objects lock once synced to ERP. ERPs need manual posting. Draft → Posted → Synced must be modeled. 2 Bespoke Mapping Tables Job, cost-code, phase, GL, vendor crosswalks are unique per company. A good agent reads the map, not guesses. 3 Fragmented Identity Same subcontractor = 4 IDs and 3 spellings across PM, ERP, waiver, and compliance systems. Naive match fails. 4 Portals Are Pervasive Surety portals, prevailing-wage systems, bank treasury have no usable API. An honest eval must include portal work. 5 PDF Is the System of Record Subcontracts, AIA pay apps, lien waivers, COIs live as PDFs in email. If the agent can’t read docs, nothing works. The five structural realities of the construction software stack (Srivastava & Harper, 2026) that make generic AI benchmarks inadequate for this vertical. Because of these realities, CFAgentBench simulates the real system of record: Vista, Sage Intacct, Foundation, CMiC, Acumatica ERPs, Procore and four other PM platforms, GCPay, LCPtracker, Levelset, Rhumbix, bank portals, Box, Outlook, and Excel. The 35 applications collapse into 9 archetypes, each implementing a uniform “app contract” that makes the whole stack self-hostable and deterministically testable. The Iron Rule: The AI Never Moves Money Design Principle 278 of the 1,014 tasks embed a payment, payroll release, e-signature, or e-filing step. In every case, the correct action is to stop and stage for human approval. An agent that initiates even the correct payment fails the task. This isn’t a limitation we plan to engineer away later. It’s the design principle that makes everything else adoptable. Segregation of duties doesn’t disappear because the second employee got smarter. CFAgentBench is the first benchmark to grade this behavior explicitly — converting “safe by default” from an aspiration into a measured outcome. What the First Results Tell Us We ran three open-weight models — DeepSeek-V3.1, Qwen3-235B, and Qwen2.5-72B — through 40 oracle-validated tasks with 5 repeated runs each (600 total runs, $5.14 total cost). The results carry a clear message. Reliability Collapse: pass¹ vs. pass⁵ Across Models The best single-shot model loses 43% of its successes when asked to repeat them 5 times 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.67 0.38 DeepSeek-V3.1 0.54 0.40 Qwen2.5-72B 0.45 0.30 Qwen3-235B pass¹ (single attempt) pass⁵ (all 5 runs succeed) pass¹ vs. pass⁵ for three open-weight models. The gap between single-shot success and reliable repeatability is the key finding — and the metric that matters for production deployment. Finding 1: Reliability collapse is the real story DeepSeek-V3.1 — the best single-attempt agent — scored 0.67 on individual tasks. But when asked to get the same task right across all 5 runs (the pass⁵ metric), it dropped to 0.38. That’s a 43% loss of successes, under fixed temperature-0 decoding. The variance isn’t from sampling randomness — it’s from serving-stack nondeterminism (mixture-of-experts routing, floating-point reductions, dynamic batching) that any production deployment would face. Why This Matters for CFOs A construction finance process runs every week. If your AI agent codes invoices correctly 67% of the time but can only reproduce that result reliably 38% of the time, you’ve created a process where someone must now find the wrong 62%. That’s worse than no agent at all. Finding 2: Bigger and newer ≠ better The older, smaller Qwen2.5-72B numerically outperformed the much larger Qwen3-235B on both metrics — suggesting that general model scale doesn’t straightforwardly translate to construction-finance competence. At n=40 the confidence intervals overlap, but the direction is clear enough to challenge the assumption that the next model release automatically solves the problem. Finding 3: Sharp domain heterogeneity Both Qwen models scored 0.87–0.90 on Billing tasks (owner pay-app drafting) but near-zero on Cross-system and AP coding. DeepSeek dominated Project Accounting (0.78) while Qwen3 scored 0.07 on the same domain. An agent that excels at one class of construction finance work can be nearly useless at another. Finding 4: Cross-system work is the hard frontier Tasks requiring an agent to move data across multiple applications (ERP → PM → email with money guard) were where every model’s pass⁵ hit zero. This is exactly the work that generates the most value when automated — and exactly where current AI falls shortest. How CFAgentBench Grades Agents

Most growing construction companies don’t have a PO problem — they have a no-PO problem. And the longer they go without a formal purchase order process, the more it costs them in duplicate payments, invoice disputes, and month-end chaos. The “We Don’t Really Have a PO Process” Stage It usually starts the same way. A project manager calls a supplier, materials show up on site, and an invoice arrives in AP a few days later. There’s no purchase order. There’s no approved amount. There’s nothing to match the invoice against except a phone call no one documented. For a contractor doing 20 jobs a year, this is manageable — barely. For a contractor doing 80, it’s a daily fire drill. Megan in AP is chasing down Eric on the job site to verify an invoice he doesn’t remember approving. Eric is trying to manage a pour schedule. Nobody wins. 💡 The absence of a PO process isn’t a people problem — it’s a systems problem. When there’s no formal way to create, approve, and track purchase orders, the entire financial control of a job depends on someone’s memory. What “No PO Process” Actually Costs You ❌ Without a PO Process ✅ With a PO Process What a Real PO Process Looks Like — Step by Step A good PO process for a growing contractor doesn’t have to be complicated. It just needs to cover three things: who can commit money, what they committed to, and whether what arrived matches what was ordered. 1. PO Created from a Quote or Verbal Order A PM or field supervisor creates a PO directly from a supplier quote — or from a phone order on mobile, on site. The PO captures the vendor, job code, cost code, and approved amount before anything ships. 2. Management Approval Before Commitment Before the PO is sent to the vendor, it routes to the right approver based on job ID and dollar threshold. No commitment goes out without a sign-off. No surprises in AP later. 3. Delivery Ticket Attached at Receipt When materials arrive on site, field staff attach the delivery ticket directly to the PO from their mobile app — photo, vendor name, quantity — right at the point of receipt. No paperwork to lose. 4. Invoice Arrives — 3-Way Match Happens Automatically When the vendor invoice hits AP, it automatically matches against the PO and the delivery ticket. If everything lines up, it moves to approval. If it doesn’t, it flags for review — before anyone pays anything. 5. Approved and Posted to ERP in Real Time Once approved, the invoice posts directly to your ERP — Vista, Spectrum, Foundation, or QuickBooks — with job code, cost code, and PO reference intact. No re-keying. No errors. The Mobile Piece Most Contractors Miss The most common reason PO processes fail at growing contractors isn’t the AP software — it’s that the process stops at the office door. PMs are on job sites. Field supervisors aren’t sitting at desks. If creating a PO or attaching a delivery ticket requires logging into a desktop system, it won’t happen consistently. The fix is putting PO creation and delivery ticket capture on mobile — so the person closest to the transaction can document it in the moment, from the field, without breaking their workflow. 76% Reduction in cost per invoice with automated AP $80K Average annual AP savings for mid-size contractors 15 min ERP sync time — Vista, Spectrum, Foundation & QuickBooks When Is the Right Time to Formalize Your PO Process? Most contractors wait too long. By the time the pain is obvious — duplicate payments, vendor disputes, a month-end close that takes two weeks — the informal habits are already baked in and harder to change. A better trigger: when your AP person is spending more than a few hours a week chasing down invoice approvals from PMs, you’ve outgrown your informal process. That’s the moment to build a real one. Signs you’re ready to formalize your PO process: How Beiing Human Builds This Process for You Beiing Human’s AP automation platform includes a complete PO workflow designed for construction contractors — from quote-to-PO creation, field mobile delivery ticket capture, 3-way matching, and approval routing, all the way through to real-time ERP sync. It integrates with Trimble Vista, Trimble Spectrum, Foundation, QuickBooks, and other leading construction ERPs — so your PO process connects directly to the system your team already runs on. For contractors on Vista and Spectrum, Beiing Human is available directly through Trimble Marketplace — the official hub for trusted Trimble technology partners. Ready to Build a PO Process That Actually Works? See how Beiing Human sets up end-to-end PO workflows for growing construction contractors. Visit Trimble Marketplace Contact Beiing Human

Why File-Based ERP Integrations Are Costing Vista & Spectrum Contractors | Beiing Human Most Vista and Spectrum contractors believe their AP software is connected to their ERP. In reality, many are running on file-based integrations that lag, break, and quietly create costly errors — and they don’t find out until it’s too late. The Hidden Problem Inside Your AP Workflow Walk into almost any construction company running Vista or Spectrum, and you’ll find the same story: invoices are coming in, someone in AP is coding them, approvals are happening — and everything looks fine on the surface. But dig one level deeper and the cracks appear. Job codes that were updated in Vista yesterday still show the old number in the AP system today. A vendor name was changed in Spectrum, but the AP team doesn’t know yet. A PO was revised in the field, but the invoice coming in still references the old amount. These aren’t rare edge cases. They’re the daily reality of running AP on a file-based integration — and they cost real money. 💡 File-based integrations — CSV exports, FTP drops, batch imports — transfer data in snapshots. They don’t reflect what’s actually happening in your ERP right now. A true two-way, real-time connection is a fundamentally different architecture. File-Based vs. Real-Time: What’s Actually the Difference? Most AP software vendors will tell you they “integrate with Vista” or “connect to Spectrum.” What they don’t always tell you is how that connection works under the hood. Feature File-Based Integration Real-Time Two-Way Sync Data freshness Nightly or manual batch Within 15 minutes Job/vendor updates Lag until next sync cycle Reflected immediately Invoice validation Against stale ERP data Against live ERP data Manual intervention Required when files break None needed Error risk High — mismatched records Low — always in sync What Real-Time Sync Actually Looks Like in Practice With Beiing Human’s two-way real-time connection to Vista and Spectrum, any change made in your ERP — a new job added, a vendor record updated, a PO revised — is reflected inside Beiing Human within 15 minutes. No file transfers. No manual imports. No one “running the sync.” This means every invoice that goes through the approval workflow is validating against live, current ERP data. If a job code doesn’t exist in Vista, the system catches it before the invoice is approved — not after it’s already been posted. 15 min ERP changes reflected in Beiing Human 76% Reduction in cost per invoice $80K Average annual AP savings The Three Workflows That Break Without Real-Time Sync 1. Approval Routing When invoices need management sign-off before touching Vista, the approval policy has to know the current state of jobs, cost codes, and vendors. With stale data, invoices get routed to the wrong approver — or worse, approved against a job that no longer exists. 2. Purchase Order Matching A PO created in Vista needs to match the delivery ticket and the vendor invoice. If any one of those three is out of sync — because a file-based transfer hasn’t run yet — the match fails and someone has to resolve it manually. With real-time sync, the PO, DT, and invoice are always referencing the same live data. 3. Month-End Close The Invoices Not Yet Approved (INYA) report is only reliable if your AP system and your ERP are telling the same story. File-based integrations introduce a gap that can push month-end close by days while your team reconciles discrepancies. Why This Matters for Trimble Marketplace Partners Beiing Human is a certified partner on Trimble Marketplace, built specifically for contractors running Vista and Spectrum. Our integration isn’t bolted on — it was architected from day one around real-time, two-way ERP sync. Trimble AEs consistently hear the same frustration from customers: “Our AP software says it connects to Vista, but it’s not really connected.” That’s the file-based integration problem showing up in the field. The fix isn’t a better batch schedule — it’s a different architecture entirely. 🏗️ Beiing Human is a certified Trimble Marketplace partner — built for Vista and Spectrum contractors. The Bottom Line If your AP software syncs with Vista or Spectrum overnight — or only when someone manually triggers it — you’re not running a connected AP workflow. You’re running a delayed one, and the errors that come from that delay are costing you in rework, reconciliation time, and month-end headaches. Real-time, two-way ERP sync isn’t a nice-to-have. For construction contractors processing hundreds of invoices a month, it’s the difference between an AP process that works and one that quietly creates problems nobody catches until close. Ready to See Real-Time Sync in Action? See how Beiing Human connects to Vista and Spectrum — and what a truly live AP workflow looks like for your team. Visit Trimble Marketplace Listing Contact Beiing Human

We have news to share: Beiing Human is an official sponsor of Trimble Dimensions 2026, and our founder Rishi Srivastava will be joining the program as a speaker. Dimensions 2026 runs November 9–11, 2026 at The Venetian Resort in Las Vegas — three days of keynotes, technical sessions, and direct conversations with the people building the future of construction, geospatial, transportation, and natural resources. We’re proud to be part of it. But beyond the announcement, we want to share why this event matters right now — and what we plan to bring to the conversation. Construction Is Mid-Transformation. The Back Office Is Still Catching Up. Walk any modern jobsite and the transformation is visible. Connected equipment. Drones surveying in minutes what used to take days. BIM models flowing between architects, GCs, and subs. Digital twins guiding decisions before a single shovel hits the ground. Then walk into the back office of those same companies. You’ll often find a finance team buried in PDFs. AP clerks rekeying invoice data into the ERP one field at a time. Project accountants chasing approvals across email threads. Controllers reconciling numbers that should have arrived clean and never did. This is the gap. The jobsite has moved into the future. The back office hasn’t. And it’s not a small problem. Manual document processes don’t just slow finance teams down — they delay payments, strain subcontractor relationships, distort job costing, and undermine every downstream report leadership relies on to make decisions. The cost shows up everywhere, just not always on the line item that says “manual data entry.” Why Dimensions Is the Right Room for This Conversation Trimble Dimensions has built a reputation as one of the few industry events where the field and the back office actually sit in the same room. CFOs share sessions with project managers. IT directors swap notes with operations leads. Software partners stand alongside the construction firms putting their tools to work. That mix is rare, and it matters. The back-office problem in construction isn’t going to be solved by finance teams alone, or by IT alone, or by the technology vendors alone. It needs the field, the office, and the platforms to align on what “clean, accurate, ERP-ready data” actually looks like in practice — and then build toward it together. Dimensions is one of the few places that conversation can genuinely happen at scale. What Beiing Human Is Bringing to the Stage At Beiing Human, we’ve spent years working with construction finance and operations teams who refuse to accept that manual document chaos is just “how it is.” Our AI-powered AP automation platform plugs directly into the ERP systems these teams already rely on — including Trimble Viewpoint Vista, where we’re proud to hold official certification on the Trimble Marketplace — so the data flowing into the books matches what’s actually happening in the field. Along the way, we’ve learned a few things worth sharing: Rishi’s session at Dimensions 2026 will draw directly on these lessons — what we’ve seen work, what we’ve seen fail, and the practical playbook construction finance leaders can take back to their own teams. A Note From Rishi “Speaking at Dimensions 2026 means a lot to me. This industry has been told for years that transformation is coming — but for finance and operations leaders, the day-to-day still feels stuck. I’m looking forward to sharing what we’ve learned from teams that are actually closing the gap, and to learning from a community that’s been pushing this conversation forward for years.” — Rishi Srivastava, Founder, Beiing Human Session Details — Coming Soon Rishi’s session title, abstract, and timing will be announced once the Trimble program is finalized. We’ll update our Dimensions 2026 event page the moment details are live, and we’ll be sharing updates here and on LinkedIn in the lead-up to the event. Let’s Meet in Vegas If you’re attending Trimble Dimensions 2026, we’d love to connect on-site. Whether it’s a quick hello between sessions, a coffee, or a proper sit-down to talk through what your team is working on — drop us a note and we’ll find time. The construction industry is mid-transformation. The back office deserves to catch up. We’ll see you in Vegas. Beiing Human is pioneering document automation for the construction industry. Learn more at beiinghuman.com.

Connect Claude, ChatGPT, or any AI assistant that supports the Model Context Protocol directly to your Beiing Human account — no exports, no copy-paste, just natural-language conversations with your live invoice and vendor data. Asheville, NC — May 18, 2026 — Beiing Human, a provider of AI-powered accounts payable automation for construction, today announced the launch of its Model Context Protocol (MCP) server. The release makes Beiing Human one of the first construction back-office platforms to expose its data and workflows through the open MCP standard, enabling customers to interact with their AP, vendor, and job-cost data through Claude and other MCP-compatible AI assistants. The Problem: Manual Reporting Eats Construction Finance Teams Alive Construction controllers and AP managers spend hours every week running the same loop: export a report, open Excel, build a pivot table, copy-paste into a deck, repeat. The data is sitting in their AP system, their accounting GL, and their project-management tool — but pulling it together for a vendor analysis or a job-cost question takes manual effort that scales linearly with company size. “Our customers tell us their controllers spend 8–12 hours a week just running reports and reconciling between systems. We built the MCP server to eliminate that loop entirely. Now you ask the question in plain English, and the AI does the work.” Rishi Srivastava, Co-Founder & CEO, Beiing Human How It Works The Beiing Human MCP server exposes a set of tools that any MCP-compatible AI assistant — Claude, ChatGPT, or others — can call on the customer’s behalf. Five tools are available at launch: search_documents — find invoices, receipts, and other AP documents by keyword get_document — pull a specific document’s full details list_vendors — surface all vendors and their summary stats list_jobs — surface all jobs and their associated cost data summarize_by_vendor — generate cost summaries by vendor with a full audit trail Setup takes about two minutes. Customers add Beiing Human as a custom connector in Claude Desktop (or any MCP-supporting client), sign in with their normal Beiing Human credentials, and start querying. Example questions: “Which vendors have we spent the most with on Job #4421?” “Pull every invoice from our top equipment rental vendor last quarter and break it down by job.” “Show me all unapproved invoices over $5,000 that have been sitting for more than 30 days.” The Bigger Story: One AI Interface Across Every System The Model Context Protocol was released by Anthropic in late 2024 and has rapidly become the de-facto way for software platforms to expose their data and workflows to AI assistants. Major productivity tools — Gmail, Slack, GitHub, Stripe, Notion — already have MCP servers, as do a growing number of CRM, ERP, and accounting systems. For construction finance teams, this means the value of any individual MCP server compounds. With Beiing Human’s MCP server in place, a controller can ask Claude to pull an invoice, cross-reference it with email correspondence, check the related project status in their PM tool, and reconcile against the GL — all in a single conversation, across multiple systems, without ever leaving the AI assistant. “The point of MCP isn’t that Beiing Human is one more AI assistant — it’s that Beiing Human becomes part of one AI assistant that already knows everything else. Your AP data, your email, your CRM, your accounting system — one intelligent interface across all of it.” Rishi Srivastava, Co-Founder & CEO, Beiing Human Built on Existing Beiing Human Security The MCP server runs on the same authentication and authorization model as the Beiing Human web application. Customers sign in with their existing credentials, and the AI assistant can only access data the user already has permission to see. All connections are encrypted in transit, and audit logs capture every query. Availability The Beiing Human MCP server is available now for all Beiing Human customers at no additional cost. Customers can set it up by following the instructions inside their Beiing Human dashboard, or by contacting their account manager. For more information, schedule a demo at www.beiinghuman.com, or contact rishi@beiinghuman.com. About Beiing Human Beiing Human provides AI-powered automation solutions for accounts payable, helping organizations reduce manual data entry, accelerate invoice processing, and maintain complete audit trails. The company’s solutions are used by construction firms across North America. To learn more, visit www.beiinghuman.com. Media Contact: Rishi Srivastava – rishi@beiinghuman.com

Integration with Trimble® VistaTM financial management system is now available through the Trimble Marketplace Asheville, NC April, 2026 — Beiing Human, a provider of AI-powered accounts payable automation, today announced that its integration with Trimble Vista has been officially certified and listed on the Trimble Marketplace. Developed using Trimble App XchangeTM integration platform and available in the Trimble Marketplace, the certified integration gives construction firms a trusted way to modernize their AP workflows. Solving a Persistent Pain Point for Construction Finance Teams Managing invoices in construction is uniquely complex. High volumes of paper-based and emailed invoices, multi-party approvals, and the need for audit-ready records create bottlenecks that slow down payments and strain back-office teams. Beiing Human addresses this by using AI to automatically extract, validate, and route invoice data — delivering completed records into Trimble Vista for review and approval. “We are proud to be certified on the Trimble Marketplace,” said Ubaid Ur Rehman, CTO of Beiing Human. “Construction finance teams deserve tools that reduce manual work without compromising accuracy or control. We look forward to helping more firms transform their accounts payable processes.” How It Works Invoices received via email are automatically routed to the Beiing Human platform, where AI-powered extraction captures key data fields. Finance teams can configure which fields are processed, review results through a clear audit trail, and approve invoices either within Beiing Human or directly in Vista. Data synchronizes between the two systems every 15 minutes, with the option to trigger a manual sync at any time. Built with Security and Compliance in Mind Beiing Human’s integration is built on Trimble App Xchange. All data is encrypted in transit and stored securely using Amazon S3 object storage. Beiing Human’s data retention policies are fully customizable, and client data can be wiped upon request. Importantly, Beiing Human’s Privacy Policy clearly outlines AI usage and associated considerations. More Than Invoice Automation While AI-powered invoice processing is at the core of the Beiing Human platform, the solution extends across a broader suite of accounts payable and financial operations capabilities. Construction firms using Beiing Human also benefit from credit card receipt automation, delivery ticket to invoice matching, purchase order creation, and vendor and bank reconciliations — all designed to reduce manual effort and bring greater accuracy to back-office workflows. Together, these features give finance teams a more complete, connected approach to managing payables within their existing Trimble Vista environment. Availability This integration is built, sold and supported by Beiing Human. More information about the Beiing Human integration for Trimble Vista is available on the Trimble Marketplace. For additional information or to schedule a demo, visit www.beiinghuman.com or contact rishi@beiinghuman.com. About Beiing Human Beiing Human provides AI-powered automation solutions for accounts payable, helping organizations reduce manual data entry, accelerate invoice processing, and maintain complete audit trails. To learn more, visit www.beiinghuman.com. Media Contact: Rishi Srivastava – rishi@beiinghuman.com

Why Businesses Are Moving Beyond QuickBooks Desktop QuickBooks Desktop has long been a go-to solution for small and mid-sized businesses. But as companies grow—especially in construction and project-based industries—it starts to show its limitations. If you’re dealing with disconnected workflows, limited reporting, or heavy spreadsheet dependency, it may be time to consider a modern ERP like Acumatica. This guide walks you through a practical, structured approach to migrating from QuickBooks Desktop (QBD) to Acumatica, based on a real-world migration framework. Why Move from QuickBooks Desktop to Acumatica? Limitations of QuickBooks Desktop As your business scales, QuickBooks Desktop often creates bottlenecks: Benefits of Acumatica ERP Acumatica is built for growth and complexity: Understanding the QBD to Acumatica Migration Process A successful migration is not just about moving data—it’s about rebuilding your financial system the right way. The process includes five critical phases: Step 1: Extract Data from QuickBooks Desktop Start by exporting structured data from QBD. Key Data to Extract: Organizing this data properly upfront reduces errors later in the migration. Step 2: Clean, Transform, and Map Your Data This is the most important step in the QuickBooks Desktop to Acumatica migration process. What Happens in This Phase: In construction environments, this step is critical because cost codes and job structures are often inconsistent. Pro Tip: Don’t migrate bad data. Clean it first. Step 3: Validate Your Data Before Import Before importing into Acumatica, validate everything. Validation Checklist: Skipping validation leads to reporting issues that are difficult to fix later. Step 4: Import Data into Acumatica Once validated, import your data into Acumatica using its import tools or APIs. Recommended Import Order: Following the correct sequence prevents dependency errors. Step 5: Post-Migration Testing and Go-Live After migration, testing ensures your system works as expected. What to Test: This is also when you train your team and finalize internal processes. Common Mistakes in QBD to Acumatica Migration Avoid these pitfalls to ensure a smooth ERP transition: 1. Treating Migration as a Simple Data Transfer A “lift-and-shift” approach just recreates old problems. 2. Skipping Data Cleanup Messy data leads to unreliable reporting. 3. Ignoring Process Improvements Acumatica enables better workflows—but only if you redesign them. 4. Lack of Internal Alignment Finance, operations, and project teams must be aligned before migration begins. Best Practices for a Successful ERP Migration Final Thoughts: Migration as a Strategic Upgrade Migrating from QuickBooks Desktop to Acumatica is more than a technical project—it’s a business transformation. Instead of asking:“How do we move our data?” Ask:“How should our financial system work going forward?” That shift is what separates a failed implementation from a successful one.

Choosing the right ERP is one of the most important technology decisions for a construction company. Two widely used systems in the industry are Foundation Software and Vista by Viewpoint. Both are designed specifically for construction accounting and project management, but they serve different types of companies and operational needs. In this article, we’ll break down the key differences between Foundation and Vista, including features, scalability, integrations, and which type of contractor each system fits best. Overview of Foundation Software Foundation Software is a construction accounting system primarily built for small to mid-sized contractors. It focuses heavily on accounting, payroll, job costing, and reporting while keeping the platform relatively simple to use. Foundation is often chosen by contractors who want strong accounting functionality without the complexity of a large enterprise ERP. Key Features of Foundation Pros of Foundation Limitations of Foundation Overview of Vista by Viewpoint Vista by Viewpoint is a more comprehensive construction ERP platform designed for mid-sized to large contractors. It combines accounting, operations, project management, and analytics into one system. Vista is widely used by companies that need deeper operational control across multiple departments. Key Features of Vista Pros of Vista Limitations of Vista Key Differences: Foundation vs Vista Feature Foundation Vista Target Companies Small to mid-sized contractors Mid-sized to large contractors Complexity Simpler system More advanced ERP Accounting Strong construction accounting Advanced accounting with deeper integrations Project Management Basic Advanced project and operations management Scalability Moderate High Implementation Faster and simpler Longer and more complex Which One Should You Choose? The choice between Foundation and Vista depends largely on the size of your company and operational complexity. Foundation may be the better choice if: Vista may be the better choice if: Improving AP Automation with Construction ERPs Regardless of whether a contractor uses Foundation or Vista, many companies still struggle with manual invoice processing, approval delays, and project manager coding bottlenecks. Modern AP automation platforms can integrate with construction ERPs to: This allows construction companies to keep their ERP as the system of record while automating the invoice workflow around it. Final Thoughts Both Foundation and Vista are strong construction ERP systems, but they serve different stages of company growth. Understanding your company’s size, operational complexity, and future growth plans will help determine which platform is the better long-term fit.