— Written by Liz Greenway, Head of Partnerships

Over the past 30 days, I’ve spent hours speaking with property managers, maintenance managers, asset managers, and operators across different portfolio sizes and markets. I listened as we walked through the process of how vendor decisions are actually made.

Who gets the next job?
When does a vendor stop being trusted?
What triggers change?

What became clear very quickly is this:

Most vendor programs don’t intend to be reactive, but they are built to respond after friction shows up.

And that gap between intent and reality is going to matter a lot more in 2026 than it did even two years ago.

 

Vendor Programs Don’t Break, They Drift

One of the biggest misconceptions about vendor performance is that failure is obvious. But it doesn’t have to be.

Across conversations, vendor issues almost never start with missed repairs, angry residents, or major escalations.

They start quietly.

• Slow acceptance speeds.
• Lack of communication.
• Unruly scheduling lead times.

A maintenance manager described it this way:

“Nothing was technically wrong. The work was still getting done. But everything felt harder than it should.”

That’s the danger zone, because most teams don’t act there.

 

The Data Teams Have, But Rarely Used Early

Almost every operator I spoke with referenced some version of the same metrics: speed of repair, resident satisfaction, and average invoice costs.

Those are important, but they’re also lagging indicators.

What kept surfacing instead were earlier signals that team feels long before they dig into the data:

• How fast a vendor accepts work
• How quickly they communicate after acceptance
• How far out they’re scheduling
• How much internal follow-up is required

Dig deeper and these signals are vendor performance KPIs that can easily be accessed in Property Meld:

• Acceptance Speed
• Response Time
• Scheduling Lead Time
• Chats per Meld

Acceptance Speed Is the First Crack in the System

Acceptance speed is rarely discussed in traditional vendor scorecards, but operators talk about it constantly.

Not because they expect instant service, but because delayed acceptance creates uncertainty.

When acceptance drifts, typically coordinators start checking dashboards more often, property managers begin “just making sure” calls, and residents don’t know what to expect.

One operator shared:

“If they accept quickly, I relax, even if they’re booked for tomorrow. If they don’t, I assume I’ll be managing this job myself.”

That reaction is intuitive, and it’s a signal teams could act on much earlier than they currently do.

Scheduling Lead Time Is Where Stress Compounds

The second data point tells a similar story. Residents don’t necessarily expect same-day repairs, although faster is ultimately better. They expect clarity.

When scheduling stretches without communication, this is where you’ll see internal workload increases, resident satisfaction drops, and maintenance starts to feel disorganized.

Another maintenance supervisor shared:

“We didn’t get complaints because the work eventually happened. But we burned a ton of internal time explaining delays.”

That internal cost rarely shows up in reports, but it directly impacts team capacity and consistency.

Why Speed of Repair and Resident Satisfaction Aren’t Enough

Speed of repair and resident satisfaction still matter. But by the time a resident moves, the experience has already been shaped.

A fast repair after days of silence doesn’t feel fast.
A five-star RSAT score doesn’t capture coordinator effort or stress.

As one operator explained:

“The resident was happy,, but my team was exhausted.”

That disconnect is exactly why reactive vendor management persists. The wrong metrics show up at the wrong time.

Loyalty Is Often a Delay Mechanism

Another theme that came up repeatedly was loyalty.

Teams stick with vendors because they’ve worked together for years, they know the properties, and they don’t want to jeopardize priority access.

That loyalty isn’t wrong, but it often delays action.

One asset manager admitted:

“We knew acceptance was slipping, but we didn’t want to pull work yet. By the time we did, residents were already feeling it.”

This is where proactive vendor management can change the outcome.

 

What Proactive Teams Are Actually Doing.. and What You Can Do in 2026

The strongest teams I spoke with weren’t rotating vendors aggressively or chasing perfection. They were doing something much simpler: watching trends, not only outcomes.

They used data to identify acceptance slowdowns early, pinpoint when vendors were overloaded, rebalance work before quality dropped, and intervene while conversations were still manageable.

Importantly, they didn’t treat data as punishment. They treated it as early context.

One maintenance leader said:

“If we bring it up early, vendors are usually relieved. They already know they’re stretched.”

 

Building Your Vendor Roster in 2026

If 2026 is about predictability, then your vendor roster needs to be built with intention, not habit.

Most teams already have the raw data to do build it, they just may not know what to do with it.

Start With the Data You Already Have

Before adding new vendors, start by reviewing the vendor performance data you already collect today, whether that’s inside Property Meld or through manual note-taking, spreadsheets, or internal docs.

The goal isn’t to overhaul your entire vendor list overnight.
It’s to identify your most reliable performers first, then audit the rest.

If you’re newer to vendor performance metrics or want a refresher on how they’re calculated, you can start here.

Step 1: Filter for Leading Indicators First

Leading indicators tell you how a job is likely to go before residents feel friction.

Use these benchmarks as a starting point to identify your strongest vendors by trade:

Leading indicators (early signals)

• Acceptance speed: 4 hours or less
• Scheduling lead time: 2–4 days

Vendors who consistently meet these thresholds tend to:

• require less coordinator follow-up,
• communicate expectations earlier,
• and create a calmer maintenance experience overall.

These are your core roster candidates.

Step 2: Use Lagging Indicators to Validate

Once you’ve identified vendors who perform well early, use lagging indicators to confirm long-term reliability.

Lagging indicators (outcomes)

• Speed of repair: 6.5 days or less
• Resident satisfaction: 4.3 or higher
• Bonus metric — Invoice capture rate: 80–90%

Lagging metrics help you validate performance trends, but they shouldn’t be the only reason a vendor earns (or loses) work. By the time these metrics drop, friction has often already reached your team or residents.

Step 3: Audit the Rest, By Trade

With your top performers identified, audit the rest of your vendors by trade, not all at once.

Ask simple questions:

• Who consistently accepts work late?
• Who requires the most follow-ups?
• Where does scheduling start to stretch under volume?

This isn’t about cutting vendors, it’s about understanding capacity, fit, and risk before problems surface.

Filling Gaps Without Starting From Scratch

Every roster has gaps, especially as portfolios grow or markets shift.

When you need to supplement coverage or test new options, consider tools like Vendor Nexus, a quality vendor network available to Property Meld users. It can be especially helpful for filling trade-specific gaps, adding backup coverage in high-volume seasons, or testing vendors who already understand your workflow.

One Important Caveat

There’s no universal “perfect” vendor roster.

The right mix depends on:

• portfolio size,
• unit count,
• market density,
• and the type of properties you manage.

We’ll dig deeper into those nuances soon, but this framework gives you a practical, data-driven place to start.

Because the strongest vendor rosters in 2026 won’t be the biggest. They’ll be the ones built intentionally, using signals teams already have, just earlier than before.

The Connection to Resident Renewals in 2026

As we move into 2026, resident renewals will be driven less by amenities and more by operational confidence.

Residents renew when maintenance feels predictable, responsive, and consistent. That experience is built long before a renewal decision is made.

For example, it’s built when work orders are acknowledged quickly, expectations are set clearly, and follow-through feels consistent.

Reactive vendor management allows uncertainty to reach residents.
Proactive vendor management absorbs it upstream.

 

The Real Opportunity Ahead

The biggest insight I gathered from these conversations isn’t that teams need more tools. It’s that they already have the right data, they just need to use each data point at the right time.

Acceptance speed and scheduling lead time aren’t just operational metrics. They’re experience multipliers.

When teams act early, vendor relationships stay healthy, teams stay calmer, and residents stay longer.

Vendor management in 2026 won’t be about controlling vendors. It will be about protecting experience before friction becomes visible. The teams that win in 2026 won’t be the ones with the most vendors or the fastest repairs.

They’ll be the ones who learned to listen earlier to their data, to their teams, and to the signals hiding in plain sight.