Subcontractor Performance Scorecard Skill for Foreman OS

Overview

The sub-performance skill delivers objective, data-driven performance scorecards for every subcontractor on a project. Rather than relying on gut feelings or anecdotal feedback, scorecards aggregate actual project data across five critical performance dimensions, each scored 1-10 and weighted to produce a composite score.

Purpose

Subcontractor performance scorecards enable:

1. Informed Bidding Decisions: When planning the next project, access historical performance data. Prefer subs with proven track records; avoid repeat problems.
2. Back-Charge Documentation: Performance data (quality failures, schedule misses, safety incidents) provides objective justification for back charges or warranty claims.
3. Performance Improvement Conversations: Instead of vague feedback ("Your crew wasn't organized"), use data: "Your PPC was 62% this quarter; the project average is 78%. Let's discuss what blocked your work."
4. Contract Incentives: Reward high-performing subs (9-10 rating) with priority on future bids, multi-project discounts, or bonus incentives.
5. Risk Mitigation: Flag at-risk subs (<5.0 rating) early; initiate corrective action meetings or contract review before problems cascade.
6. Preferred Vendor Lists: Build institutional memory across projects. Track sub performance over years; promote reliable, professional subs; deprioritize problematic ones.

Scorecard Philosophy

The sub-performance scorecard is objective, data-driven, and fair. It:

• Pulls data automatically from daily reports, inspections, safety logs, and RFI records (not manual opinions)
• Uses transparent scoring criteria so subs understand what they're measured on
• Separates factors within a sub's control (quality, responsiveness, professionalism) from external factors (weather delays, supplier issues)
• Generates dialogue: "Your score is 6.8. Here's where you excelled and where you can improve."

---

The Five Scoring Dimensions

Each dimension is scored 1-10, measured against objective criteria, and weighted in a composite formula.

1. Schedule Adherence (25% Weight)

Definition: Does the subcontractor complete committed work on time, maintain promised crew size, mobilize/demobilize on schedule, and hit project milestones?

Scoring Criteria

90%+ PPC (Percent Plan Complete) = 10

• Subcontractor completes commitments more than 90% of the time
• Minimal incomplete work; when incomplete, root cause is external (weather, owner delay, supplier)
• Crew size consistent with promises
• Mobilization on time; demobilization efficient

80-89% PPC = 8

• Subcontractor completes commitments 80-89% of the time
• Good reliability; occasional incomplete work (5-10 items per season)
• Crew size generally consistent
• Minor delays in mobilization/demobilization

70-79% PPC = 6

• Subcontractor completes commitments 70-79% of the time
• Marginal; noticeable delays and scope deferrals
• Crew size inconsistency (promised 4, shows 2-3)
• Mobilization delays or early demobilization without notice

60-69% PPC = 4

• Subcontractor completes commitments 60-69% of the time
• Poor; significant schedule impact on downstream trades
• Chronic crew size shortages or absences
• Frequent mobilization/demobilization issues

<60% PPC = 2

• Subcontractor completes commitments fewer than 60% of the time
• Unacceptable; project delays directly attributable to this sub
• Crew unavailable, undersized, or uncooperative
• Critical schedule milestones missed

Data Sources

• PPC by Trade from last-planner skill (calculated weekly)
• Crew Counts from daily reports (promised vs. actual headcount)
• Milestone Dates from schedule vs. actual completion dates
• Mobilization/Demobilization Dates from contract documents vs. field records

Calculation

Schedule Score = PPC × 1.0 (primary), adjusted ±0.5 for crew consistency and milestone performance

Example (MOSC):

• Walker Construction: PPC 87%, crew consistent, early mobilization = 8.5 → Score: 8 (round down)
• W Principles (Concrete): PPC 71%, crew undersized last 2 weeks, stem wall pour delayed 1 week = 6 → Score: 6

---

2. Quality (25% Weight)

Definition: Does the subcontractor produce work that passes inspection on first attempt, minimize punch list items, avoid rework, and maintain warranty standards?

Scoring Criteria

First-Pass Inspection Rate (FPIR) 95%+ = 10

• 95% or more of the sub's work passes inspection without corrections
• Punch list items <5 per 1,000 SF of work
• Rework frequency <2% of total work
• Post-completion warranty callbacks zero or minimal

FPIR 90-94% = 8

• 90-94% of work passes first inspection
• Punch list items 5-10 per 1,000 SF
• Rework frequency 2-3%
• Few warranty callbacks

FPIR 85-89% = 6

• 85-89% of work passes first inspection
• Punch list items 10-20 per 1,000 SF
• Rework frequency 3-5%
• Occasional warranty callbacks

FPIR 80-84% = 4

• 80-84% of work passes first inspection
• Punch list items 20-40 per 1,000 SF
• Rework frequency 5-8%
• Multiple warranty callbacks

<80% FPIR = 2

• Fewer than 80% pass first inspection
• Punch list items >40 per 1,000 SF
• Rework frequency >8%
• Recurring warranty failures

Data Sources

• Inspection Tracker from quality-management skill (pass/fail rates by trade, by phase)
• Punch List Items from punch-list skill (filtered by responsible trade)
• Rework Log from quality-management or daily-report-format (completed rework tasks)
• Warranty Callback Records from closeout and post-completion phase

Calculation

Quality Score = (FPIR base 1-10) + (Punch list adjustment ±1) + (Rework adjustment ±1) + (Warranty adjustment ±0.5)

Example (MOSC):

• EKD (CFS Framing/Drywall): FPIR 91%, punch list 8/1000 SF, rework 2%, zero callbacks = 8 + 0 + 0 + 0.5 = 8.5 → Score: 8
• Stidham Cabinets: FPIR 87%, punch list 15/1000 SF, rework 4%, 1 callback = 6 + 0 + (-0.5) + 0 = 5.5 → Score: 6

---

3. Safety (20% Weight)

Definition: Does the subcontractor maintain a safe worksite, train crews on safety procedures, comply with PPE and housekeeping standards, and avoid incidents?

Scoring Criteria

Zero Recordable Incidents + Full Compliance = 10

• No OSHA-recordable incidents (injuries requiring medical treatment beyond first aid)
• Zero near-miss events logged
• 100% toolbox talk attendance and documentation
• Consistent housekeeping scores (site clean, debris cleared, hazards mitigated)
• PPE compliance: Hard hats, safety glasses, hi-vis, steel-toe boots observed on all crew members every site visit
• Competent person certifications current (excavation, fall protection, scaffold)

Zero Recordables + Minor Non-Compliance = 7

• No recordable incidents
• 1-2 near-miss events (minor, quickly corrected)
• Toolbox talk attendance >90%
• Housekeeping good (occasional clutter, quickly cleaned)
• PPE compliance >95% (1-2 minor PPE lapses observed)
• Certifications current

Minor Incidents + Non-Compliance = 4

• 1 recordable incident (e.g., minor laceration, strain) during project
• 3-5 near-miss events
• Toolbox talk attendance 80-90%
• Housekeeping inconsistent (frequent debris, poor organization)
• PPE compliance 80-90% (repeated reminders needed)
• Certifications current but minimal training beyond requirements

Serious Incidents or Chronic Non-Compliance = 1

• Multiple recordable incidents (2+) or serious incident (hospitalization, lost-time injury)
• Chronic near-misses (6+) suggesting systemic safety culture problem
• Toolbox talk attendance <80%
• Poor housekeeping (chronic debris, tripping hazards, blocked exits)
• PPE non-compliance <80% (repeated violations despite warnings)
• Expired certifications or untrained crews

Critical Safety Failure = 0

• OSHA citation
• Willful safety violation
• Incident resulting in fatality or permanent disability
• Shut down by OSHA inspector
• Repeated violations after formal notice

Data Sources

• Safety Management Records from safety-management skill (incident log, near-miss reports)
• Daily Site Observations from daily-report-format (housekeeping notes, PPE compliance)
• Toolbox Talk Log from safety procedures (attendance by crew)
• OSHA Records (citations, inspections)
• Safety Audit Scores from project-wide safety audits

Calculation

Safety Score = Base (0-10) adjusted by incident severity and pattern analysis

Example (MOSC):

• Walker Construction: Zero recordables, 1 near-miss (remediated), toolbox talks 100%, housekeeping 95%, PPE compliance 100%, certs current = 10
• Davis & Plomin (HVAC): Zero recordables, zero near-misses, toolbox talks 95%, housekeeping good, PPE compliance 95%, certs current = 9 → Score: 9

---

4. Responsiveness (15% Weight)

Definition: How quickly does the subcontractor respond to RFIs, submit required documents, resolve issues, and communicate with the project team?

Scoring Criteria

<3 Day Average RFI Response + <5 Day Submittal Turnaround = 10

• RFI responses average <3 business days (questions answered in writing within 3 days)
• Submittals reviewed and returned with approval/corrections within 5 days
• All requested information provided on first submission (no back-and-forth delays)
• Communication clear, complete, professional
• Proactive issue resolution: Sub flags potential problems before they escalate

3-5 Day RFI Response + 5-7 Day Submittal = 8

• RFI responses average 3-5 business days
• Submittals turnaround 5-7 days
• Minor information gaps requiring 1-2 follow-up requests
• Good communication; responsive to requests
• Issues addressed when raised

5-7 Day RFI Response + 7-10 Day Submittal = 6

• RFI responses average 5-7 business days
• Submittals turnaround 7-10 days
• Information gaps or incomplete submissions requiring clarification
• Communication adequate but sometimes unclear
• Reactive: Issues addressed after they become critical

7-14 Day RFI Response + 10-14 Day Submittal = 4

• RFI responses average 7-14 business days
• Submittals turnaround 10-14 days
• Frequent incomplete submissions; multiple follow-ups required
• Communication poor; difficult to reach, vague responses
• Slow issue resolution; delays cascade to downstream work

>14 Day RFI Response + >14 Day Submittal = 2

• RFI responses >14 days or no response without escalation
• Submittals overdue; extended back-and-forth delays
• Consistently incomplete submissions; requires constant chasing
• Communication unreliable; poor responsiveness
• Issues unresolved for weeks; impacts project schedule

Data Sources

• RFI Log from rfi-preparer skill (date issued → date answered, tracked per trade)
• Submittal Tracking from submittal-intelligence skill (date received → date approved, by supplier)
• Communication Records (email response times, meeting attendance, call logs)
• Issue Resolution Log (tickets opened → closed, time-to-resolve)

Calculation

Responsiveness Score = (RFI response time score 1-10) + (Submittal turnaround score 1-10) / 2
+ (Communication quality manual score 1-10) / 3

Example (MOSC):

• Schiller (Doors/Hardware): RFI avg 12 days, submittal avg 24 days (OVERDUE), communication poor = 3 + 2 + 2 / 3 ≈ 2.3 → Score: 2
• Alexander (PEMB): RFI avg 2 days, submittal avg 4 days, communication clear, proactive = 10 + 10 + 9 / 3 ≈ 9.7 → Score: 10

---

5. Professionalism (15% Weight)

Definition: Does the subcontractor conduct business ethically, manage their crews professionally, cooperate with other trades, and maintain contract compliance?

Scoring Criteria

Excellent Professionalism = 10

• Crew conduct exemplary: respectful, cooperative, courteous to other trades
• Site cleanliness maintained by sub crew (no excessive debris, orderly staging)
• Strong cooperation with other trades: coordinates, communicates, accommodates sequencing
• Insurance, documentation, paperwork always on time and complete
• Contract compliance: invoices accurate, change orders negotiated fairly, requests reasonable
• Superintendent rates: "This sub is a pleasure to work with; model contractor"

Good Professionalism = 8

• Crew generally well-behaved; occasional minor conflicts or coordination issues
• Site organization generally good; periodic cleanup reminders needed
• Good cooperation; generally accommodates other trades
• Insurance and paperwork mostly timely; 1-2 minor gaps
• Fair contract compliance; reasonable in change order discussions
• Superintendent rates: "Solid, professional contractor"

Adequate Professionalism = 6

• Crew behavior acceptable; occasional complaints or minor discipline issues
• Site cleanliness inconsistent; requires frequent reminders to clean up
• Cooperation adequate; sometimes slow to coordinate with other trades
• Insurance/paperwork sometimes late; requires follow-up
• Contract compliance marginal; change orders negotiated with difficulty
• Superintendent rates: "Acceptable; some professionalism concerns"

Poor Professionalism = 4

• Crew behavior problematic: conflicts with other trades, disrespectful, complaints from other contractors or owner
• Poor site cleanliness; chronic debris, messy staging areas
• Uncooperative; resistant to schedule changes, poor coordination
• Insurance/paperwork frequently late; requires constant chasing
• Contract disputes: unreasonable change order requests, invoicing inaccuracies
• Superintendent rates: "Difficult to work with; unprofessional"

Unacceptable Professionalism = 1-2

• Crew behavior serious issues: multiple conflicts, threats, unsafe conduct toward others
• Very poor housekeeping; safety hazard from debris
• Uncooperative/obstructive; blocking other trades, refusing coordination
• Insurance lapsed or missing; paperwork delinquent
• Contract violations: false invoices, refusal to correct deficiencies, litigation-level disputes
• Superintendent rates: "Cannot work with this contractor; recommend termination"

Data Sources

• Superintendent Manual Rating (weekly or phase-end assessment, 1-10 scale, with notes)
• Daily Report Observations (crew conduct, site cleanliness, cooperation notes)
• Incident Reports (conflicts, complaints filed by other trades or owner)
• Document Compliance Tracking (insurance certificates, licenses, submittals timeliness)
• Change Order Audit (reasonableness of requests, fairness of negotiations)
• Owner/Architect Feedback (site visits, correspondence, satisfaction comments)

Calculation

Professionalism Score = Superintendent manual rating (primary, 1-10) + adjustments based on incident/compliance records (±0-1)

Example (MOSC):

• EKD (CFS Framing): Excellent crew conduct, clean site, strong cooperation, all insurance timely, fair in negotiations. Super rates 9/10. Score: 9
• W Principles (Concrete): Good crew, mostly clean, cooperation adequate, insurance 1 week late last month, change orders negotiated fairly. Super rates 7/10. Score: 7

---

Composite Score Calculation

Once all five dimensions are scored 1-10, combine using this weighted formula:

COMPOSITE SCORE = (Schedule × 0.25) + (Quality × 0.25) + (Safety × 0.20)
                  + (Responsiveness × 0.15) + (Professionalism × 0.15)

Rating Scale

Composite Score	Rating	Status	Action
9.0-10.0	Excellent	Preferred Bidder	Recognition, incentives, preferred bid list
7.0-8.9	Good	Standard Operations	Continue; monitor annually
5.0-6.9	Needs Improvement	At Risk	Performance meeting; improvement plan; increased monitoring
<5.0	At Risk	Critical	Formal corrective action; contract review; potential termination

Scorecard Example: MOSC Project

Walker Construction (Excavation/Sitework)

• Schedule (PPC 87%): 8.5 → 8
• Quality (FPIR 93%, punch list 6/1000 SF): 8
• Safety (zero recordables, 100% compliance): 10
• Responsiveness (RFI avg 2 days, clear communication): 9
• Professionalism (excellent crew conduct, clean, cooperative): 9
• Composite = (8 × 0.25) + (8 × 0.25) + (10 × 0.20) + (9 × 0.15) + (9 × 0.15) = 2.0 + 2.0 + 2.0 + 1.35 + 1.35 = 8.7
• Rating: GOOD ✓

W Principles (Concrete - Self-Perform)

• Schedule (PPC 71%, crew undersized): 6
• Quality (FPIR 88%, punch list 14/1000 SF): 6
• Safety (zero recordables, 95% compliance): 9
• Responsiveness (RFI avg 4 days, timely submittals): 8
• Professionalism (crew adequate, occasional cleanup issues): 7
• Composite = (6 × 0.25) + (6 × 0.25) + (9 × 0.20) + (8 × 0.15) + (7 × 0.15) = 1.5 + 1.5 + 1.8 + 1.2 + 1.05 = 7.05
• Rating: GOOD ✓

Schiller (Doors/Hardware)

• Schedule (PPC cannot assess — material/supply; apply default 5 for supplier reliability): 5
• Quality (FPIR pending; apply default 5): 5
• Safety (N/A — no onsite crew; rate 5 default): 5
• Responsiveness (RFI avg 12 days, submittal avg 24 days OVERDUE): 2
• Professionalism (insurance on file, but poor communication): 5
• Composite = (5 × 0.25) + (5 × 0.25) + (5 × 0.20) + (2 × 0.15) + (5 × 0.15) = 1.25 + 1.25 + 1.0 + 0.30 + 0.75 = 4.55
• Rating: AT RISK ✗
• Action: Formal corrective action letter sent 02/18/26. Require daily submittal status updates. Consider alternate supplier for future work.

---

Project Intelligence Integration

When project intelligence is loaded, auto-populate scorecard data from project files instead of requiring manual data collection for each scoring dimension.

Sub Roster

Build the complete subcontractor list from directory:

• Read directory.json → subcontractors[] → get complete sub list with trade, contract scope, contact info, and contract amount
• Auto-populate scorecard headers with sub name, trade, contract value, and mobilization date
• Example: Walker Construction — Excavation/Sitework — $185,000 — Mobilized 01/21/26

Schedule Adherence (25% Weight)

Pull attendance and milestone data for schedule scoring:

• Read daily-report-data.json → crew attendance records → calculate days present vs. scheduled for each sub
• Read schedule.json → planned activities → compare against actual work logged in daily reports
• Read labor-tracking.json → crew_summaries[] → verify promised crew headcount vs. actual on-site headcount
• Calculate PPC by trade from weekly commitment tracking data
• Example: Walker scheduled 20 work days, present 18 → 90% attendance; PPC 87% → Schedule Score: 8

Quality Score (25% Weight)

Aggregate quality metrics from inspection and punch data:

• Read inspection-log.json → filter by sub → calculate pass/fail rates per sub (FPIR)
• Read quality-data.json → quality_metrics → pull FPIR and corrective action count per trade
• Read punch-list.json → filter by responsible_sub → count punch items per 1,000 SF for each sub
• Example: EKD — 91% FPIR, 8 punch items per 1,000 SF, 2% rework rate → Quality Score: 8

Safety Score (20% Weight)

Pull safety records from safety log:

• Read safety-log.json → recordable_incidents[] → filter by sub → count recordable incidents per sub
• Read safety-log.json → near_misses[] → filter by sub → count near-miss events
• Read safety-log.json → toolbox_talks[] → calculate attendance rate per sub's crew
• Read daily-report-data.json → housekeeping and PPE compliance observations per sub
• Example: Walker — zero recordables, 1 near-miss, 100% toolbox talks, 100% PPE → Safety Score: 10

Responsiveness (15% Weight)

Calculate turnaround times from RFI and submittal logs:

• Read rfi-log.json → filter by originating sub → calculate average days from date_issued to response
• Read submittal-log.json → filter by sub → calculate average submittal turnaround time and resubmission rate
• Flag subs with average RFI response > 7 days or submittal turnaround > 14 days as "at risk" responsiveness
• Example: Schiller — RFI avg 12 days, submittal avg 24 days (OVERDUE) → Responsiveness Score: 2

Crew Productivity

Benchmark productivity against plan quantities:

• Read labor-tracking.json → productivity_ratios[] → pull output-per-labor-hour by trade and sub
• Compare against industry benchmarks or project-specific targets
• Flag subs with productivity ratio below 80% of benchmark for performance discussion
• Example: W Principles concrete — 0.85 CY/labor-hour vs. benchmark 1.0 CY/labor-hour → 85% of benchmark → flag for review

---

Extended reference: Detailed examples, templates, scoring rubrics, and best practices are in references/skill-detail.md.