sub-performance

name	sub-performance
description	Objective, data-driven subcontractor performance scorecards based on five weighted dimensions: Schedule Adherence (25%), Quality (25%), Safety (20%), Responsiveness (15%), and Professionalism (15%). Aggregates data from daily reports, inspections, PPC tracking, safety records, and RFI/submittal turnaround. Enables informed bidding decisions, back-charge documentation, and performance improvement conversations. Triggers: "sub scorecard", "subcontractor performance", "rate sub", "sub evaluation", "vendor performance", "trade performance", "sub rating", "contractor scorecard", "performance review", "back charge", "sub report card".
version	1.0.0

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.