Subcontractor work completion checklist and review template

Identify the package and submission

Enter the Job, site, accepted scope reference, supplier, submission date and evidence references. A project can contain several subcontract packages, so a name or general trade description may not identify what is being reviewed.

Use the accepted package version rather than a later proposal still under discussion. A new draft does not by itself replace the agreed work. The reviewer needs the actual basis against which the submission should be assessed.

Keep the supplier’s description of work claimed complete and any disclosed outstanding matter in the cover section. That gives the reviewer a defined starting point without treating the claim as its own approval.

Select relevant supporting documents and evidence for the review. The package may need particular images or records, while unrelated customer history and private selling prices remain outside the supplier’s work pack.

Choose the reviewer and basis

Assign an appropriately competent business reviewer with the information needed for the package. Keep review independent of the person’s own subcontracted work in this workflow. A supplier cannot supply their claim and silently stand in for the business’s approval.

Identify the specification, drawing or accepted item relevant to each row. The scope-and-evidence table keeps that basis beside the supplier claim and actual observation. An unexplained checklist tick gives less help to somebody reviewing the decision later.

Where the package needs specialist or regulated assessment, use the appropriate process and evidence. The Word worksheet can retain a reference, but does not perform that judgement or establish a universal acceptable standard.

Confirm that the reviewer can access the selected information. A submission may be available while the relevant specification is missing or superseded. Resolve that gap before relying on a result that the evidence cannot support.

Compare the submission item by item

Suppose the submission claims the required floor area is complete, but the evidence does not identify one location needed for review. The next contribution may be a clarified view or another appropriate check, rather than an immediate instruction to redo physical work. Record the evidence gap against the relevant item and ask for the information that would resolve it. A separate tidying observation may need an actual correction and recheck. Keeping those rows distinct lets the supplier understand why one response is informational while another concerns delivered work, and prevents a general rejection from obscuring the specific review needed.

For each relevant agreed item, record the supplier’s claim or evidence and the reviewer’s observed position. Distinguish what was supplied from what was actually checked. A photograph reference is not automatically the outcome of an inspection.

The worked example uses a floor package with a fitting area, completion-evidence requirement and tidying item. It shows a missing location view and an actual review still needed. No row claims a real project passed inspection.

Classify the next contribution accurately. Missing evidence may require more information; an assessed discrepancy may require correction. Those situations lead to different supplier actions even when neither is ready for approval.

If a proposed item is outside the accepted package, identify that commercial question rather than assume it is a failed delivery item. Review the actual scope and any separate change before assigning the supplier work they did not offer.

Request a specific correction or answer

The correction section asks for the discrepancy or missing information, relevant accepted basis, requested contribution and supplier response. Use a location and scope reference that the supplier can recognise.

For missing evidence, name the specific view or record and why it is relevant to the agreed review. Avoid asking for every photograph from the site when the package requires one defined piece of information.

For a correction, describe the actual reviewed issue rather than write "not good enough". Keep the assessment and applicable specification connected to the request. The supplier needs a clear question or action they can address.

Choose an appropriate owner and timing for the response or return arrangement. A target in the review log does not itself arrange access or assign a team. Coordinate those practical decisions through the relevant work records.

Review the revised submission

Identify the revised submission and what changed in response to the request. Retain the earlier review context so a colleague can follow why another check was needed. Replacing every old note would hide that sequence.

Recheck the relevant issue and retain actual evidence and outcome. A message saying the supplier addressed it is another contribution to review, not a substitute for the check your process requires.

Keep each remaining condition visible. One row can be resolved while another still needs information. The result should describe the actual package position rather than close every item because a revised file arrived.

Where the proposed remedy changes the bought scope, use the appropriate agreement process. The correction record can identify that question without silently accepting a different specification or amount.

Record the actual review outcome

The outcome section distinguishes more information needed, corrections requested and delivery approved through the actual business process. Record the reviewer, date, relevant scope, supporting evidence and any condition.

Use the label that the record supports. A signature or filed worksheet cannot demonstrate that unreviewed work meets the package requirement. Retain the decision basis rather than make the document look complete by choosing the most favourable result.

Communicate the relevant outcome to the supplier and team using selected information. They need to understand what remains to provide or correct, while unrelated private notes stay in their appropriate record.

Keep payment and the whole Job separate

Delivery approval and supplier payment answer different questions. Use the actual payment arrangement and financial process for money owed or received. The worksheet does not create a receipt or prescribe when payment must occur.

The reviewed subcontract can be one part of a wider Job that still has other work or customer handover outstanding. Keep those records and decisions identifiable instead of treating one package approval as completion of the whole project.

If a Customer change affects a supplier package, review the supplier’s own agreement. Customer acceptance does not silently amend that relationship. Keep the scope, response and later delivery review connected on their actual bases.

Review one package with the template

Choose one actual submission and identify the accepted package and evidence before filling the table. Record the first discrepancy or information gap, give it a specific requested contribution and choose the appropriate reviewer.

Use the worked example for structure, then remove it from the version used for actual records. The useful result is a traceable comparison between bought work and submitted delivery, with a clear route to the next review or decision.