Connecting Payments With Accounting Software for a Service Company
BluePeak Facility Services keyed every payment into accounting by hand. Integrated card and ACH acceptance removed 96% of manual entry and returned 30 staff hours a month.
- Client
- BluePeak Facility Services
- Client type
- Commercial facility services contractor
- Company size
- 100–500 employees
- Locations
- 3 operating branches
- Processing volume
- $850,000 / month
Executive summary
BluePeak's finance team was re-typing payment data that already existed in two other systems. We integrated card and ACH acceptance directly into the invoicing and accounting workflow so payments post themselves, with fees and deposits reconciled automatically.
30 staff hours saved monthly.
96% reduction in manual payment entry.
Faster month-end close, from 6 days to 2.5.
Card and ACH reporting unified in one system.
Client profile
- Industry
- Commercial facility and janitorial services
- Employees
- 220
- Monthly volume
- $850,000
- Invoice count
- ≈1,900 per month
- Payment mix
- 54% ACH, 41% card, 5% check
The challenge
Manual reconciliation and payment data entered into accounting software by hand.
- Every payment was entered twice — once to take it, once to record it.
- Keying errors created open invoices that were actually paid, triggering wrong dunning notices.
- Month-end close slipped several days when volume spiked.
- Processing fees were booked as one lump sum with no job-level attribution.
Why the previous setup was failing
- • Standalone virtual terminal unconnected to invoicing.
- • ACH collected through the bank's separate origination portal.
- • Two accounting staff keying payments into the ledger daily.
- • Deposits matched to invoices by exporting CSVs and using lookup formulas.
- • The virtual terminal was sold as a payment tool, never as part of an accounting workflow.
- • ACH lived in the bank portal, so card and bank payments never shared a reporting surface.
- • No remittance data flowed with the payment, so matching relied on human interpretation.
- • Growth doubled invoice count while the manual process stayed the same.
Our assessment
- Time study of the daily payment posting routine across two accounting staff.
- Sample of 300 payments traced end to end to find where matching broke.
- Review of accounting and field service platforms for supported payment integrations.
- ACH pricing and return-handling comparison against the incumbent bank portal.
The recommended solution
- Integrate card and ACH acceptance directly into the invoicing workflow.
- Send remittance detail with every transaction so payments self-match to invoices.
- Move ACH origination onto the same platform as card for one reconciliation surface.
- Automate fee and deposit journal entries into the general ledger.
- Add a hosted customer payment page with card-on-file for recurring contracts.
Implementation Process
- 1
Week 1: Discovery
Workflow mapping, time study, and integration compatibility confirmation.
- 2
Weeks 2–3: Build
Accounting and field service integrations configured in sandbox, with matching rules tested against historical payments.
- 3
Week 4: Pilot
One branch live, running parallel with the manual process for validation.
- 4
Weeks 5–6: Rollout
All branches live, customer payment page announced, finance team trained on exception handling.
Technology and integrations
Integration changes
- • Native accounting integration with automatic invoice matching and payment application.
- • Field service platform passes job and customer identifiers into each transaction.
- • Daily settlement and fee entries posted automatically, split by branch.
Processing changes
- • Single platform for card and ACH with unified reporting.
- • ACH return codes surfaced with automated notification and retry rules.
- • Card-on-file tokenization for contracted recurring customers.
- • Level II data enabled for commercial card payments.
Obstacles and resolutions
Historical invoices had inconsistent reference formats.
Built a normalization rule set and cleaned the open receivables file before cutover.
Some commercial customers pay from AP portals with no remittance detail.
Created a small manual exception queue instead of forcing every payment through automation.
Accounting staff were concerned about losing control of postings.
Ran parallel posting for three weeks with a daily variance report until confidence was established.
Measurable results
≈$21,000 annualized labor recovery plus a 14 basis point effective rate reduction from ACH mix shift and Level II qualification.
Operational improvements
- • Two accounting staff redeployed from data entry to collections and analysis.
- • Wrong dunning notices to paid customers effectively eliminated.
- • Exception queue replaced full manual review of every payment.
Reporting improvements
- • Payment activity visible by branch, job, and customer.
- • Processing fees allocated to the correct cost centers automatically.
- • One report covering card and ACH instead of two disconnected exports.
Funding improvements
- • Predictable next-day card funding and standardized ACH settlement windows.
- • Deposit totals tie to batch totals without manual investigation.
Customer experience improvements
- • Customers pay from a link on the invoice instead of calling in a card.
- • Saved payment methods for contract customers reduce repeat friction.
- • Payment confirmations sent automatically on receipt.
Before and after
| Measure | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Manual payment entry | ≈1,900/month | ≈76/month (exceptions) |
| Month-end close | 6 days | 2.5 days |
| Payment systems | 3 (terminal, bank ACH, ledger) | 1 integrated flow |
| Staff hours on posting | ≈32 hrs/month | ≈2 hrs/month |
“The integration removed repetitive work and gave our finance team cleaner reporting.”
Related services
Payments wired into the systems that already run your business.
Learn moreBank-to-bank payments that lower cost and unlock recurring revenue.
Learn morePayments data that ties out to accounting on the first pass.
Learn moreRelated integrations
Related industries
Related insights
Frequently asked questions
Are these results guaranteed?+
No. This engagement is demonstration content built on realistic scenarios. Actual outcomes depend on your volume, mix, software, and current pricing — which is exactly what a review establishes.
How long did the BluePeak Facility Services engagement take?+
The implementation ran across 4 phases; most comparable environments cut over in 7 to 14 business days once scope is agreed.
Do we have to change software to see similar results?+
Usually not. Most of this work happens in merchant structure, pricing, data capture, and integration configuration around software you already run.
Can we see a version of this analysis for our business?+
Yes. A payment review returns the same structure — assessment, recommendation, projected impact — against your own statements.
Want this analysis for your business?
Send us your current setup and we'll return a written assessment covering cost, integrations, reporting, and funding.
Related solutions and references
The pages that explain the payment methods, integrations and account structure behind this engagement.
Ready to see what your setup could look like?
Book a working session focused on outcomes like the BluePeak Facility Services engagement. Clear recommendations, no obligation.
- • 150+ software platforms reviewed
- • 1,500+ merchant environments evaluated
- • Under 24-hour average response time
- • 7–14 business day onboarding