Case study·Social housing

Contractor performance review

From frustrated supplier conversations — to scorecards reviewed before the meeting

4
Underperforming contractor patterns surfacedNamed patterns attached to specific contractors with linked jobs
“We walked into supplier reviews with evidence instead of frustration.”
Procurement Lead · UK social housing provider
UK social housing provider·12,000 homes / 9 active repairs and planned-works contractors in scope·6-week pilot·United Kingdom
Talk to us about this workflowTry Unify
01Pilot envelope
Pilot length6 weeks
First signal7 days
First ROI35 days
Team alongside6 seats · 2 colleagues

6-week procurement pilot; mapped contractor jobs, cost, SLA and resident feedback; scorecards reviewed before supplier conversations. The contractor portal, Totalmobile, Service Connect, the finance and procurement system and the resident feedback platform were joined read-only against six months of historical jobs before any scorecard was put in front of a supplier.

02What it owns
Reports toProcurement Lead, with a working line into the Repairs Manager who co-owned the underperformance conversations.
Owns
  • Contractor scorecard — one page per contractor with jobs, cost-per-completed-job, SLA breach rate, rework rate and resident feedback, refreshed before each review
  • Underperformance pattern queue — a short list of named patterns (no-access rate, repeat callouts, disputed extras) attached to specific contractors with the underlying jobs linked
  • Dispute evidence pack — contested invoices, partial completions and disputed extras joined back to the jobs and resident notes that explain them
  • Resident-feedback rollup — survey and complaint signal aggregated by contractor, not just by job, with the source comments linked
  • Pre-review brief — a short memo for the Procurement Lead that flags the three things to raise in the next supplier conversation
Does not do
  • Supplier decisions — surfaces the pattern; the Procurement Lead and Repairs Manager run the conversation and decide on remedy
  • Contract changes or termination — drafts evidence only; legal and procurement governance own the decision
  • Resident-facing communication — surfaces the complaint signal; the housing team replies
Done looks like

The Procurement Lead opens each supplier review with a scorecard that already joins jobs, cost, SLA and resident voice to the contractor in the room. Disputed work is discussed against linked evidence, not from memory.

03The team
AI teammates2
EliJoins contractor jobs, cost-per-completed-job, SLA breach rate, rework rate and resident feedback into a single one-page scorecard per contractor, refreshed before each scheduled supplier review.
MiraAssembles dispute evidence packs — contested invoices, partial completions and disputed extras joined back to the underlying jobs and resident notes — for the procurement lead and finance to approve before each supplier meeting.
Human team6
  • Procurement LeadProcurement
  • Repairs ManagerRepairs leadership
  • 3 Contract managersProcurement
  • Finance business partnerFinance
  • 2 Repairs supervisorsRepairs operations
  • Repairs analystInsight
04Connected stack
Contractor portalTotalmobileService ConnectFinance and procurement systemTenant survey platformPower BI
05What it returned
4Underperforming contractor patterns surfacedNamed patterns attached to specific contractors with linked jobs
66%Dispute evidence prep time reductionMedian hours per supplier meeting vs the pre-pilot baseline
GBP 28kContested work clarified in the first review cycleContested extras, partial completions and disputed callouts resolved against linked evidence
  • Day 0
    Co-ordinator sessionProcurement Lead, Repairs Manager and the contract managers agree the contractor list in scope, the scorecard fields and the first three answerable questions for the pilot.
  • Day 7
    First signalEli completes a read-only join across six months of contractor jobs, invoices, SLA breaches and resident feedback; the first cost-per-completed-job and rework rate by contractor land in front of procurement.
  • Day 16
    Read-only scorecards liveScorecards land in the Procurement Lead's review folder for each contractor in scope; contract managers correct two contractor mappings and one SLA definition.
  • Day 24
    Dispute evidence pack liveMira assembles the first dispute evidence pack ahead of a scheduled supplier review; finance approves the contested figures against linked invoices and jobs.
  • Day 35
    ROI reviewProcurement Lead signs off the three baseline metrics and approves the scorecard and dispute pack as the standing artefacts for every supplier review going forward.
↗Get started

Want this for your team?

Each design-partner pilot starts the same way: one workflow, the minimum useful context, and a first ROI signal measured in days.

Talk to us about this workflowTry Unify