Subcontractor Evaluation Checklist
A subcontractor evaluation checklist template that does two jobs: approve them before they start, then score them once they have. Twelve criteria weighted so the ones that matter carry more, weights set once and held constant so the whole approved list stays comparable, and every document tracked to the day it expires rather than the year it was issued.
- Weights set once, so subcontractors are actually comparable
- Documents counted down to expiry, not just filed
- A published band, so a score means something to them
- Fifteen prequalification checks before the first job
Subcontractor Evaluation Checklist
Approved before, scored after
| # | WEIGHTED PERFORMANCE SCORE | WEIGHT | SCORE | WEIGHTED |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Health and safety on site | |||
| 2 | Quality of work | |||
| 3 | Right first time |
The document you will get. Download for the full, editable file.
Who this subcontractor evaluation form is for
One approved list, and three people who need different things from the same evaluation.
Whoever runs the approved list
Sections 2 and 3. Fifteen prequalification checks before the first job, and eight documents tracked to their expiry rather than filed on the day they arrived.
Whoever scores performance
The twelve weighted criteria. Weight one to three, score one to five, and the weighted column works itself out, which keeps the conversation about the scores rather than about the arithmetic.
Whoever owns safety on site
The issues table and the safety lines in prequalification. Recording a near miss that was handled well feels pedantic and is exactly how a pattern becomes visible.
The subcontractor being evaluated
The band and the actions. A published banding turns a number into something they can respond to, and the decision section tells them what work they may be given and up to what value.
Where the approved list carries the most risk
The structure suits any organization using subcontractors. What changes is how much of the work is subcontracted and what a lapsed document actually exposes you to. If you run one of these, the sector page goes further than the template does.
- FM service providers
Contracted delivery, where most of the work is subcontracted and the approved list effectively is the service.
FM service provider software - Commercial real estate
Multi tenant portfolios, where a subcontractor working in a demised area brings the lease into a safety question.
Portfolio maintenance software - Healthcare
Clinical environments, where competence evidence and infection control arrangements are checked rather than assumed.
Healthcare maintenance software - Retail and malls
Many small sites, where subcontractors work unsupervised and the reference call does more than the paperwork.
Retail maintenance software - Education
Campuses, where safeguarding checks sit alongside the usual competence and insurance requirements.
Campus maintenance software - Corporate facilities
Occupied offices, where conduct and appearance score as heavily as technical quality because the work happens around people.
Corporate facilities software
What a contractor prequalification checklist should contain
A subcontractor evaluation checklist is the document that approves a subcontractor before they start and scores them once they have worked for you. It records prequalification evidence, tracks each document to its expiry date, scores weighted criteria against a published band, logs issues in the period, and ends in a decision to keep, improve or remove them.
A. The sections that carry the weight
| Field | What goes in it | Why it earns its place |
|---|---|---|
| Subcontractor details | Company, registration, trades, size and whether they subcontract onward | The onward subcontracting question is the one people forget to ask. A firm you approved sending somebody you have never assessed is the commonest way an approved list stops meaning anything. |
| Evaluation type | Prequalification, annual review, post-contract or for cause | Worth recording because the same form does very different jobs. A for cause evaluation after an incident is not the same conversation as an annual review. |
| Prequalification | Fifteen requirements from insurance to modern slavery, each with the evidence seen | Evidence seen rather than evidence claimed. The difference is a certificate in a folder versus a tick against a question somebody answered on the phone. |
| References | Taken from two comparable clients | Singled out because it is the only line here that a broker cannot produce. Everything else on the list can be downloaded; the reference call is what tells you what they are like to work with. |
| Documents held and when they expire | Eight documents with issuer, reference and a days-to-expiry countdown | A countdown rather than a date. Filing an insurance certificate tells you it existed once; counting down to its expiry tells you whether they are insured today. |
| Weighted performance score | Twelve criteria, weight one to three, score one to five | Weighted because the criteria are not equal. Health and safety failing is not the same as a quoting inaccuracy, and a flat average says they are. |
| Overall score and band | The percentage, the previous score, the band and the minimum acceptable | The previous score is what makes this a trend rather than a verdict. A subcontractor at 74% and climbing is a different decision from one at 74% and falling. |
| Defect rate | Jobs completed against jobs with a defect or complaint | A second measure that does not depend on anybody's judgment. Scores are opinions with structure; the defect rate is arithmetic. |
| Issues in the period | Date, issue, category, severity, their response and whether it closed | Their response is the column that earns its place. A firm that stopped work and issued the missing method statement the same day is not the same as one that argued. |
| Decision and actions | Approved, with conditions, improvement required, suspended or removed | With a deadline for the actions and a date it was discussed with them. A decision nobody communicated is not a decision. |
| What work they may be given | All trades, or a restricted list, and a spend limit per job | The practical output. An approved list with no restrictions and no limits is just a list of companies you have heard of. |
| Sign-off | Evaluated by, approved by, when they were told and how long it is kept | The told-them date matters. A score the subcontractor has never seen cannot change how they perform, which was the point of producing it. |
Two decisions make this document work, and both of them are made once rather than per subcontractor. The first is the weights. Twelve criteria scored one to five would give you a number, but it would be the wrong number, because it would treat a lapse in site safety as equivalent to slightly optimistic quoting. Weighting one to three fixes that, but only if the weights are set before the first evaluation and then left alone. Weights adjusted between subcontractors, however reasonably, mean the scores cannot be compared, and comparison is the entire reason to score rather than to form an impression. The second decision is publishing the band. A subcontractor told they scored 74% has been given a number and no information. Told that 85% and above is approved, 70 to 84 is approved with actions, 50 to 69 is improvement required and below 50 means removal, they now know they are one band off, which actions are being asked for and what happens if nothing changes. The banding in the template is a common one and it is a starting point rather than a rule. What matters is that you agree yours once and tell people what it is, because a score whose meaning is decided after the fact is not a measurement, it is a verdict with a number attached.
B. What it looks like filled in
One subcontractor at annual review. The score is up seven points on last year, and the insurance date is the line worth watching.
| Line | Value |
|---|---|
| Subcontractor | Ashdown M&E, mechanical and fabric |
| Evaluation type | Annual review |
| Overall score | 88%, against 81% last year |
| Band | Approved |
| Jobs and defects | 46 jobs, 2 with a defect, 4% |
| Insurance expires in | 554 days |
Eighty-eight percent puts this firm in the approved band, and the seven point rise matters more than the number itself. A single score is a snapshot, and snapshots invite argument. A score that moved from 81 to 88 against weights that did not change is evidence of something, and it gives the annual review a subject other than whether the scoring is fair. The defect rate is the useful cross-check. Two defects in forty-six jobs is four percent, and unlike the weighted score it does not depend on anybody's judgment, so a firm whose score climbs while its defect rate climbs too is telling you the scoring is being generous. The insurance line is the one that would have caused the problem. Five hundred and fifty-four days is comfortable now, and the only reason anybody will know when it stops being comfortable is that the file counts down rather than recording an issue date. A folder full of valid certificates and a subcontractor whose cover quietly lapsed last month look identical until somebody makes a claim.
Word for the version you send out or work through in a review meeting, Excel for the one that counts documents down to expiry and calculates the weighted score and defect rate, and PDF for the copy that goes on file. Free, and yours to rebrand.
How do you evaluate a subcontractor?
Agree the weights and the banding before you evaluate anybody. After that the process is mechanical. Six steps.
Set the weights once, for everyone
Twelve criteria, weight one to three according to how much each matters to you. Do this before the first evaluation and then leave them alone, because weights that move make the scores incomparable.
Publish the banding
Agree what each score means and tell subcontractors before they are scored. A common split is 85% and above approved, 70 to 84 approved with actions, 50 to 69 improvement required and below 50 removed.
Prequalify before they start, not after the first job
Fifteen requirements from insurance and competence to environmental and ethical position, each recorded against the evidence you actually saw rather than what was claimed.
Take the references
Two comparable clients. Every other item on the prequalification list can be produced by a broker or downloaded, and this is the only one that tells you what they are like to work with.
Enter real expiry dates and let them count down
Eight documents, each with the date it expires. A countdown is what tells you a subcontractor is uninsured today; a filing date only tells you they were insured once.
Score, decide, and tell them
Score the twelve criteria, check the defect rate against the weighted score, set the decision with any conditions and a deadline, and make sure they have actually been told what it was.
Prequalification versus evaluation
The same form covers two different moments, and treating them as one job is why approved lists drift. One is a gate. The other is a measurement.
| Aspect | Prequalification | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| When it happens | Before the first job | After a period of work |
| What it asks | Can you demonstrate you are capable | What were you actually like |
| What the evidence is | Certificates, policies and references | Jobs, defects, issues and conduct |
| What it produces | On the list, or not | A score, a band and a trend |
| How often it repeats | At onboarding, then on expiry | Annually, or for cause |
| What it cannot tell you | How they behave on site | Whether they were ever competent |
Neither half works alone, and the gap between them is where most approved lists quietly fail. Prequalification on its own produces a list of firms with immaculate paperwork, some of whom are difficult to work with in ways no certificate predicts. Evaluation on its own produces informed opinions about firms nobody checked were insured. The two also fail on different timescales: prequalification decays, because documents expire and companies change, while evaluation only becomes meaningful once there is enough work to judge. Running both against one set of weights and one published band is what turns an approved list into something that can be defended. Separately, this document does not issue work. Once a subcontractor is approved and you want them to do something, that is a contractor work order, which carries the scope, the rates and the authorization for a specific job. Keeping the two apart matters more than it sounds, because an evaluation that drifts into scoping work stops being comparable with the other evaluations.
When the template starts to feel limiting
The file is built for one approved list of a manageable size. Four things start to hurt as soon as that is not the shape of the problem.
The countdown only runs when the file is open
Days to expiry recalculates when somebody opens the workbook. A certificate that lapsed three weeks ago is discovered the next time a person happens to look.
One file per subcontractor, reconciled by hand
The register is a second place the same numbers live, so the approved list is only as current as the last time somebody copied a score across.
Performance and jobs live apart
Scores are entered from memory and from whatever anybody wrote down. The jobs that produced them sit in a different system, so the defect rate is an estimate.
Issues do not accumulate across subcontractors
A near miss recorded against one firm is invisible against the site. The same access problem happening to three subcontractors reads as three isolated entries.
What running this in Facilio looks like
The evaluation does not change. What changes is that expiry is watched and the score is built from jobs rather than recalled.
Work Order Intelligence
The score comes from the work
Jobs completed, defects and repeat visits attach to the subcontractor who did them, so the defect rate is counted rather than estimated at review time.
Audit Report Intelligence
Documents are watched, not filed
Insurance, accreditation and competence certificates carry their expiry, so a lapse surfaces before the subcontractor is next on site rather than after a claim.
Asset Intelligence
Issues read against the site as well as the firm
The same access or permit problem hitting several subcontractors is recognizable as a site problem rather than as unrelated entries on separate evaluations.
Ops Performance Intelligence
The approved list stays current
Scores, bands and next review dates sit in one place, so the question of who is currently approved for what does not depend on when a register was last reconciled.
Hallucination-free by design. Atom AI answers from the records in your tenant rather than generating plausible text, so an empty field reads as empty rather than filled in for you.
Frequently asked questions
What is a subcontractor evaluation checklist?
It is the document that approves a subcontractor before they start and scores them once they have worked for you. It holds fifteen prequalification requirements, eight documents tracked to their expiry, twelve weighted performance criteria and a decision at the end.
The decision is the output: approved, approved with conditions, improvement required, suspended or removed from the list, with the work and the spend limit they may be given.
What should a contractor prequalification checklist contain?
Public and employers' liability insurance, professional indemnity where relevant, trade registrations and licenses, competence evidence, a health and safety policy, accident and enforcement history, method statements and risk assessments, access to competent safety advice, financial standing, references, data protection, modern slavery position, environmental policy and waste carrier license, and controls over onward subcontracting.
Record the evidence you actually saw rather than what was claimed, because the two diverge more often than people expect.
How should the weighted scoring work?
Twelve criteria, each given a weight from one to three according to how much it matters, then scored one to five. The weighted column multiplies the two, and the overall score is the weighted total against the maximum possible, which is the sum of the weights multiplied by five.
Set the weights before the first evaluation and keep them constant. Weights that move between subcontractors make the scores incomparable, and comparison is the reason for scoring at all.
What banding should you use?
A common split is 85% and above approved, 70 to 84 approved with actions, 50 to 69 improvement required and below 50 removed from the approved list. The template records a minimum acceptable score alongside the band.
Whatever you choose, agree it once and publish it. A score with no published band means nothing to the subcontractor receiving it, and 74% with no context reads as a judgement rather than an action list.
Why track document expiry rather than just filing certificates?
Because a folder of valid certificates and a subcontractor whose insurance lapsed last month look identical. The expiry countdown is the only column that will tell you the difference before a claim does.
Enter the real expiry dates and the days column counts down on its own. Insurance, accreditations, competence certifications and waste carrier licenses all expire on their own schedules.
Why are references singled out?
Because every other item on the prequalification list can be produced by a broker or downloaded from a template. Policies, certificates and method statements demonstrate that a firm can assemble paperwork.
A reference call to two comparable clients is the only part of the process that tells you what they are actually like to work with, which is usually what determines whether the relationship works.
Should you record issues that were resolved well?
Yes. The issues table has a column for their response precisely so that a firm which stopped work and issued the missing method statement the same day is distinguishable from one that argued about it.
A pattern of near misses handled properly is still a pattern, and it will not be visible if only unresolved problems get written down.
Does this cover issuing work to a contractor?
No. This approves and scores them. Issuing a specific job, with its scope, rates and authorization, is a contractor work order and belongs on its own document.
Keeping the two apart matters, because an evaluation that starts describing work stops being comparable with the other evaluations on the list.
In one paragraph
A subcontractor evaluation works when the weights are set once and held constant, because weights that move between firms make the scores incomparable and comparison is the whole point of an approved list. Publish the banding so a score means something to the subcontractor receiving it, enter real expiry dates so documents count down rather than sit in a folder, and take the references, since everything else on the prequalification list can be downloaded.
An approved list is only as current as its expiry dates
Set the weights, publish the band, prequalify before the first job and take the references. Once nothing is counting the certificates down, or the defect rate has to be estimated from memory at review time, the file has reached its limit.
