Vendor Evaluation Worksheet
A printable weighted scoring sheet that turns a vendor judgment into a documented, repeatable comparison.
On This Page
- Before You Score
- 1. Compliance — Pass or Fail Before Scoring
- 2. Weighted Scoring
- 3. Price — Assessed Last
- Interpreting the Result
- Reusing This Worksheet
This worksheet scores vendors across the dimensions that actually differentiate exterior maintenance contractors. Equipment does not appear on it, because most established contractors have comparable machines — what differs is judgment, discipline, and documentation practice.
Set the weights before scoring anyone. Weighting after seeing the scores is how a predetermined conclusion gets a paper trail.
Print this page directly from your browser. Navigation, sidebar, and calls to action are removed in print, leaving the worksheet and a notes column.
Before You Score
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Property | |
| Scope being evaluated | |
| Vendor | |
| Evaluator | |
| Date | |
| Weights agreed by |
1. Compliance — Pass or Fail Before Scoring
These are gates rather than scored criteria. A failure here removes the vendor from consideration regardless of everything else.
| Gate | Verified how | Pass / Fail |
|---|---|---|
| Insurance certificate obtained from carrier or broker | ||
| Coverage current for the intended work dates | ||
| Additional insured endorsement names correct entity | ||
| Workers' compensation in place | ||
| Commercial auto where vehicles are on site | ||
| Legal entity name consistent across documents | ||
| Licensing applicable to the work | ||
| Subcontracting disclosed and held to same standard |
2. Weighted Scoring
Score each criterion 1–5 against evidence rather than impression. Multiply by weight for the weighted column.
Technical judgment
| Criterion | Weight | Score 1–5 | Weighted | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identifies substrates correctly and varies method accordingly | ||||
| Named specific areas that will not fully clean, and why | ||||
| Proposed a test area per distinct substrate | ||||
| Described drainage on this specific property | ||||
| Explained what would cause them to stop work |
Environmental practice
| Criterion | Weight | Score 1–5 | Weighted | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stated a specific wash water disposal path, not a general assurance | ||||
| Owns recovery and containment equipment rather than hiring it | ||||
| Described containment deployed before water is applied | ||||
| Aware of local requirements for this jurisdiction |
Operational reliability
| Criterion | Weight | Score 1–5 | Weighted | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performed a site walk before quoting | ||||
| Committed to a specific window per zone | ||||
| Described the procedure when a window is compromised | ||||
| Crew consistency — same personnel return | ||||
| Capacity for the scope and any portfolio requirement |
Documentation practice
| Criterion | Weight | Score 1–5 | Weighted | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Photographs offered as standard, not on request | ||||
| Containment evidence provided as a deliverable | ||||
| Products and data sheets available | ||||
| Condition reporting from site offered | ||||
| Times worked recorded and provided |
Commercial fit
| Criterion | Weight | Score 1–5 | Weighted | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experience with this property type | ||||
| References verifiable and relevant | ||||
| Proposal responds to the stated scope rather than a generic one | ||||
| Exclusions stated explicitly | ||||
| Measured quantities included |
3. Price — Assessed Last
Price is compared only among vendors whose proposals passed the comparability check. A proposal that did not price the stated window, method per substrate, or water handling is not comparable and should be requoted rather than discounted.
| Comparability check | Yes / No |
|---|---|
| Measured quantities stated | |
| Priced the specified schedule window | |
| Addressed method per substrate | |
| Specified wash water handling | |
| Separated recovery from recurring | |
| Stated exclusions | |
| Included documentation deliverables |
| Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total weighted score | |||
| Comparability check passed | |||
| Price | |||
| Recommendation |
Interpreting the Result
A high score with a failed comparability check means the vendor is promising well and pricing something else. Requote before comparing.
A strong technical and environmental score with weak documentation is common and usually fixable by specification — those deliverables can be required rather than hoped for. A weak technical score is not fixable by specification, because it reflects judgment rather than process.
Reusing This Worksheet
Keep completed sheets. Scoring the incumbent on the same criteria at each periodic review turns selection scoring into performance tracking, and a vendor scored consistently over three years produces a far better picture than any single evaluation.
See the vendor evaluation guide and vendor performance reviews.
Part of the Decision Support Center
This resource is part of the Power Wash NorCal Commercial Decision Support Center — planning worksheets, scoring tools, and review structures.
Request a Free Quote
Ready to schedule service for your Northern California property?
Request a Commercial QuoteRelated Services
Related Academy Resources
Maintenance Program Checklist
A printable build sequence for establishing an exterior maintenance program: foundations, do…
Read More →Portfolio Planning Checklist
A printable checklist for exterior maintenance across a property portfolio: inventory, stand…
Read More →Frequently Asked Questions
What should be scored when evaluating a maintenance vendor?
Technical judgment, environmental practice, operational reliability, documentation practice, and commercial fit — with compliance treated as a pass-or-fail gate before scoring begins. Equipment does not belong on the sheet, since most established contractors have comparable machines.
When should weights be set?
Before scoring anyone. Weighting after seeing the scores is how a predetermined conclusion acquires a paper trail, and it destroys the value of having a documented comparison at all.
How should price factor into vendor scoring?
Last, and only among proposals that passed a comparability check — measured quantities, the specified window, method per substrate, water handling, recovery separated from recurring, exclusions, and documentation. A proposal failing any of those is not comparable and should be requoted rather than discounted.
Discuss your maintenance program
If this is a live question on one of your properties, we can look at it with you — no obligation, no sales sequence.
Discuss This on Your Own Property
If this is a live question on a property you manage, we can look at it with you — a site walk-through, a written scope, or a program proposal, whichever fits where you are.
Request a Property Assessment