Score one gate failure from report to verification
This worked exercise tests one operating scenario rather than scoring an entire management company. All candidates, observations, and scores below are fictional. They illustrate a board's evaluation method, not actual provider performance. Give every candidate the same facts and ask the people proposed for the assignment to explain their workflow.
Set the scenario and the rules
A shared vehicle gate intermittently fails to open. Several residents have reported it. A vendor has visited before, the prior invoice is paid, and the present proposal excludes dedicated onsite staffing. The board wants to know how the candidate would combine reports, establish authority, coordinate another visit, communicate uncertainty, and verify whether the fault is resolved.
Provide a fictional prior work order and an approval policy created solely for the exercise. Do not use residents' personal details or real access credentials. Tell candidates they may identify missing information rather than guessing. Rate each stage from 0 to 2: 0 for no workable answer, 1 for a partial answer, and 2 for a clear process supported by the requested example or explanation.
Illustrative scored response
- Intake and history: 2 of 2. Candidate A links duplicate reports to one case, checks the prior work order, and records the conditions under which the gate fails. Evidence: a completed fictional intake record.
- Approval and changed scope: 1 of 2. The candidate identifies the initial authorization route but does not explain who approves additional work after diagnosis. Evidence: a workflow with an unresolved change-approval step.
- Vendor coordination: 2 of 2. The proposed work order includes the location, history, access arrangements, and requested diagnostic report. It distinguishes inspection from authorization for unlimited repairs.
- Resident updates: 1 of 2. The candidate proposes an initial notice but has no identified owner for the next update if the repair is delayed.
- Verification and closeout: 0 of 2. The response treats receipt of the invoice as completion and does not address the intermittent nature of the fault.
The illustrative total is 6 of 10. Its value is the pattern of gaps, not the number alone. A board that considers verification essential should not average that missing step away because the intake demonstration was strong.
Ask targeted follow-up questions
Ask Candidate A to show how a change request reaches the authorized approver, identify who owns delayed updates, and describe evidence that would justify closure. A useful answer might include an agreed observation or testing plan coordinated with qualified personnel. Do not ask management staff or residents to perform unsafe mechanical work.
If clarification changes a score, preserve the original observation and add the new evidence with a date. Offer other candidates the same opportunity to clarify equivalent gaps. This makes the comparison more consistent and reduces the influence of a particularly polished presentation.
Carry findings into the agreement
The scenario may expose a field-service task that was never priced, a board dependency, or an unavailable capability. Resolve those findings in the proposed scope and implementation plan before treating the demonstration as a commitment. Use separate exercises for unrelated critical needs; one gate scenario cannot establish accounting quality, legal compliance, or every aspect of service fit.