You're Paying Your Worst Plumber the Same as Your Best One

I was reviewing maintenance data for a PM company in Nashville — 230 doors, solid operation, experienced team. They used three plumbers on rotation. When I pulled the numbers, the performance gap was shocking.

Plumber A: average response time 3 hours, average job cost $285, callback rate 4%, tenant satisfaction 4.6/5.

Plumber B: average response time 14 hours, average job cost $340, callback rate 12%, tenant satisfaction 3.2/5.

Plumber C: average response time 6 hours, average job cost $310, callback rate 8%, tenant satisfaction 3.9/5.

Each plumber received roughly one-third of the plumbing work orders. Nobody had ever pulled the numbers. The maintenance coordinator dispatched based on a rotation — Plumber A, then B, then C, then A again — regardless of performance. They’d been sending a third of their plumbing work to a vendor who was 19% more expensive, four times slower to respond, and three times more likely to require a callback.

Across all trades, the company was working with 22 vendors. None of them had performance data. None had been compared against each other. The dispatch system was essentially a Rolodex.

The Hidden Cost of Vendor Indifference

When I calculate the cost of undifferentiated vendor dispatch, I look at three factors:

Cost differential. If your best plumber charges $285/job and your worst charges $340, and you send 80 plumbing jobs per year, dispatching only to the best plumber saves $4,400 annually — in plumbing alone. Multiply across all trades, and the savings compound quickly.

Callback costs. A 12% callback rate versus 4% means triple the number of return visits. Each callback requires re-dispatch, re-scheduling with the tenant, and often a second vendor fee. On 80 plumbing jobs, that’s 6 extra callbacks at $200+ each — $1,200 in direct costs plus the tenant satisfaction damage.

Tenant impact. A vendor who takes 14 hours to respond versus 3 hours directly affects tenant satisfaction and retention. If that slow response causes even one non-renewal per year, the $4,000 turnover cost dwarfs any maintenance savings.

Building a Vendor Performance System

The system I recommend has four components:

Component 1: Vendor scorecards. Every completed work order feeds the scorecard automatically. Response time (dispatch to vendor acknowledgment), completion time (dispatch to work completed), cost (compared to category average), callback rate (return visits within 30 days for the same issue), and tenant satisfaction (if you collect post-maintenance ratings).

These scores don’t need to be complicated. A simple weighted average — 30% response time, 25% cost, 25% quality/callbacks, 20% satisfaction — gives you a number that objectively ranks vendors within each trade.

Component 2: Smart dispatch. When a work order comes in for plumbing, the system checks: which plumbers are qualified for this type of job, which are in the right service area, and who has the highest performance score? It dispatches to the best-fit vendor automatically. If that vendor doesn’t confirm within a pre-set window (I recommend 2 hours for routine work, 30 minutes for urgent), the system auto-dispatches to the backup.

Component 3: Insurance and compliance tracking. Every vendor should have general liability insurance (minimum $1M) and workers’ compensation on file. The system tracks expiration dates and sends renewal reminders 30 days before expiry. If a certificate lapses, the vendor is automatically suspended from the dispatch rotation until compliance is restored.

This isn’t just administrative hygiene — it’s liability protection. A vendor without insurance who injures themselves on a property you manage creates a liability chain that lands on your owner client. One incident can cost more than every dollar you’ve ever earned from that property.

Component 4: Competitive bidding. For jobs exceeding a cost threshold (I recommend $1,000), the system automatically solicits quotes from 2-3 qualified vendors. The PM reviews the quotes, selects a vendor, and approves the work — but the solicitation and comparison are automated. This prevents the “we always use Dave for everything” pattern that leads to uncompetitive pricing over time.

The Vendor Relationship Balance

One concern I hear from PM companies: “If we start tracking and scoring vendors, won’t we damage relationships?” The opposite is true. Good vendors want accountability. They know they’re better than the competition, and they appreciate a system that rewards quality over relationships.

The vendors who push back against scorecards are usually the ones who know they won’t score well. And those are exactly the vendors your company — and your tenants — would be better off replacing.

The Nashville company implemented vendor scorecards and smart dispatch across all 22 vendors. Within six months, they had dropped four underperforming vendors, promoted two rising-star vendors to primary status, and reduced their average maintenance cost per work order by 14%. Their maintenance coordinator’s job shifted from “finding and managing vendors” to “reviewing performance data and optimizing the roster” — a much more valuable and sustainable use of their time.