Higher costs only make sense if they buy defined value. Look at the contract: did you pay for thicker base layers under patios, larger plant sizes, commercial-grade irrigation parts, or longer warranties? If so, the higher price was likely justified. If the specs were vague or generic, you may have paid extra without getting lasting benefit. The risk with choosing the lowest bid is that savings show up as thinner bases, undersized plants, or cheaper parts that fail quickly. Over time, extra maintenance and replacements erase the initial savings. The best approach is to compare contracts line by line before hiring. Price only matters when tied to measurable outcomes. A well-built project with durable materials should save money long term by avoiding rework. Spending more is worth it if the contract clearly defines what you’re getting—and those items protect performance, durability, and your overall satisfaction.
Should I have spent more for better quality with a landscape contractor?
Related FAQs
-
Why are change orders from the contractor adding up so fast?
Change orders are one of the easiest ways for costs to spiral if they’re not managed. Common causes include scope…
-
What if I hate the finished landscaping?
Prevent it. Require drawings (and 3D, if the scope warrants), samples/mockups for pavers and edging, and a flagged field layout…
-
Will a landscape company abandon me after they get paid?
That risk drops when the contract protects you. Require: 1) milestone payments tied to visible work, 2) a written punch…
