subcontractor-scorecard

Subcontractor Scorecard Skill

Every GC has a mental list of subs they'd hire again and subs they'd rather eat the higher bid to avoid. This skill turns that instinct into a defensible record: five weighted dimensions, anchored 1–5 scales so two reviewers score alike, evidence per rating, and a recommendation you can put in front of a preconstruction meeting — or a sub's principal — without it reading as a grudge.

What This Skill Produces

• A weighted scorecard across five dimensions with a 0–100 composite score
• Anchored 1–5 ratings per dimension with the evidence behind each
• A recommendation tier: preferred / approved / conditional / do-not-rebid
• Feedback points suitable for a performance conversation with the sub
• Optional side-by-side comparison when scoring multiple subs in a trade

Required Inputs

Ask for what's missing; from partial data, score what's evidenced and mark unscored dimensions [insufficient data] rather than guessing:

• Sub and trade, projects covered by the evaluation, contract values
• Schedule facts — milestones hit/missed, manpower vs. commitments, recovery behaviour
• Quality facts — punch item counts vs. trade norms, rework/back-charges, inspection failures, submittal quality
• Safety facts — recordables/near-misses on your sites, EMR if known, toolbox/permit compliance
• Paperwork facts — timeliness of lien waivers, certified payroll, insurance certs, closeout docs
• Change-order behaviour — pricing reasonableness, claims posture, T&M ticket discipline

Scoring Framework

Score each dimension 1–5 against the anchors, then weight:

| Dimension | Weight | 1 (fails) | 3 (solid) | 5 (excellent) |

|---|---|---|---|---|

| Schedule reliability | 30% | Chronic slips, ghost crews, drives the critical path late | Hits most dates; slips flagged early with recovery plan | Hits dates, staffs to plan, accelerates when asked without drama |

| Quality / rework | 25% | Repeated failed inspections, punch counts far above trade norm, back-charged rework | Normal punch volume, closes items promptly, rare rework | First-time-quality culture; punch list light and closed fast |

| Safety | 20% | Recordable(s) from ignored controls; fights the safety program | Compliant; participates in briefings; near-misses reported | Brings hazards to you first; crews self-police; clean record |

| Paperwork discipline | 10% | Chases required for waivers/certs; closeout drags months | Mostly on time with reminders | Billing, waivers, and closeout docs arrive right, first time |

| Change-order behaviour | 15% | Weaponises COs — lowball bid, then claims on every RFI | Prices changes fairly with backup; negotiates in good faith | Flags cost issues before they're changes; transparent pricing |

Composite = Σ(rating × weight) × 20, giving 0–100. Map to a recommendation:

• 85–100 Preferred — invite to negotiate, consider for design-assist
• 70–84 Approved — keep on the bid list
• 55–69 Conditional — rebid with specific conditions (named super, weekly look-ahead, tighter retainage)
• <55 Do-not-rebid — document why; a low bid from this sub isn't a low cost

Safety scores of 1–2 cap the overall recommendation at Conditional regardless of composite — a sub who hurts people isn't "preferred" at any price.

Output Format

Subcontractor Scorecard: [Sub] — [Trade] — [Period/projects]

1. Composite score & recommendation tier — with the one-paragraph justification.

2. Dimension table — | Dimension | Weight | Rating (1–5) | Evidence |

3. Trend note — improving, stable, or declining vs. prior projects, if history given.

4. Conditions / feedback points — specific, evidence-backed items for the sub conversation.

5. Data gaps — dimensions scored on thin evidence, flagged [insufficient data].

Quality Checks

• [ ] Every rating cites specific evidence (project, event, count) — no vibes-only scores
• [ ] Weights sum to 100% and the composite math is shown
• [ ] Safety cap rule applied if safety scored 1–2
• [ ] Recommendation tier follows from the score — or the override is stated and justified
• [ ] Feedback points are usable in a face-to-face with the sub's principal without escalating

Anti-Patterns

• [ ] Do not let one bad final month erase a good project — score the whole evaluation period
• [ ] Do not score paperwork as highly as schedule — the weights exist because the failure modes aren't equal
• [ ] Do not average away a safety failure inside the composite — apply the cap rule
• [ ] Do not write "poor attitude" as evidence — describe the behaviour and its project impact
• [ ] Do not score dimensions you have no data for — mark [insufficient data] and say what record-keeping would fix it