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
Anti-Patterns
1---2name: subcontractor-scorecard3description: Score a subcontractor's performance across schedule reliability, quality, safety, paperwork, and change-order behaviour with weighted anchors. Use when asked to evaluate a sub, build a subcontractor scorecard, decide whether to rebid or rehire a trade, review sub performance for prequalification, or justify removing a sub from the bid list. Produces a weighted scorecard with per-dimension anchored ratings, evidence notes, and an award/retention recommendation.4---5
6# Subcontractor Scorecard Skill
7
8Every 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.
9
10## What This Skill Produces
11
12- A **weighted scorecard** across five dimensions with a 0–100 composite score
13- **Anchored 1–5 ratings** per dimension with the evidence behind each
14- A **recommendation tier**: preferred / approved / conditional / do-not-rebid
15- **Feedback points** suitable for a performance conversation with the sub
16- Optional **side-by-side comparison** when scoring multiple subs in a trade
17
18## Required Inputs
19
20Ask for what's missing; from partial data, score what's evidenced and mark unscored dimensions `[insufficient data]` rather than guessing:
21
22- **Sub and trade**, projects covered by the evaluation, contract values
23- **Schedule facts** — milestones hit/missed, manpower vs. commitments, recovery behaviour
24- **Quality facts** — punch item counts vs. trade norms, rework/back-charges, inspection failures, submittal quality
25- **Safety facts** — recordables/near-misses on your sites, EMR if known, toolbox/permit compliance
26- **Paperwork facts** — timeliness of lien waivers, certified payroll, insurance certs, closeout docs
27- **Change-order behaviour** — pricing reasonableness, claims posture, T&M ticket discipline
28
29## Scoring Framework
30
31Score each dimension 1–5 against the anchors, then weight:
32
33| Dimension | Weight | 1 (fails) | 3 (solid) | 5 (excellent) |
34|---|---|---|---|---|
35| **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 |
36| **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 |
37| **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 |
38| **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 |
39| **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 |
40
41**Composite** = Σ(rating × weight) × 20, giving 0–100. Map to a recommendation:
42
43- **85–100 Preferred** — invite to negotiate, consider for design-assist
44- **70–84 Approved** — keep on the bid list
45- **55–69 Conditional** — rebid with specific conditions (named super, weekly look-ahead, tighter retainage)
46- **<55 Do-not-rebid** — document why; a low bid from this sub isn't a low cost
47
48Safety scores of 1–2 cap the overall recommendation at **Conditional** regardless of composite — a sub who hurts people isn't "preferred" at any price.
49
50## Output Format
51
52### Subcontractor Scorecard: [Sub] — [Trade] — [Period/projects]
53
54**1. Composite score & recommendation tier** — with the one-paragraph justification.
55**2. Dimension table** — | Dimension | Weight | Rating (1–5) | Evidence |
56**3. Trend note** — improving, stable, or declining vs. prior projects, if history given.
57**4. Conditions / feedback points** — specific, evidence-backed items for the sub conversation.
58**5. Data gaps** — dimensions scored on thin evidence, flagged `[insufficient data]`.
59
60## Quality Checks
61
62- [ ] Every rating cites specific evidence (project, event, count) — no vibes-only scores
63- [ ] Weights sum to 100% and the composite math is shown
64- [ ] Safety cap rule applied if safety scored 1–2
65- [ ] Recommendation tier follows from the score — or the override is stated and justified
66- [ ] Feedback points are usable in a face-to-face with the sub's principal without escalating
67
68## Anti-Patterns
69
70- [ ] Do not let one bad final month erase a good project — score the whole evaluation period
71- [ ] Do not score paperwork as highly as schedule — the weights exist because the failure modes aren't equal
72- [ ] Do not average away a safety failure inside the composite — apply the cap rule
73- [ ] Do not write "poor attitude" as evidence — describe the behaviour and its project impact
74- [ ] Do not score dimensions you have no data for — mark `[insufficient data]` and say what record-keeping would fix it
Mohit Aggarwal