Full-process collaborative optimization system based on sub-contracting suppliers

Abstract

The application relates to the technical field of project subcontracting management, and discloses a full-process collaborative optimization system based on subcontracting suppliers, which comprises a full-process acquisition module, an early preparation module, a mid-term execution module, a late acceptance module and a collaborative optimization module. The system acquires project full-process management data and subcontracting supplier management data through the full-process acquisition module, evaluates the early comprehensive performance stability of each subcontracting supplier through the early preparation module, generates a stability index, improves the completeness of the risk chain, evaluates the construction collaboration level of each subcontracting supplier through the mid-term execution module, generates a collaboration index, improves the cross-operation efficiency, evaluates the performance quality of the subcontracting project in the later period through the late acceptance module, generates a rebound index, realizes full-chain quality control, judges the stability level, the collaboration level and the rebound level of the subcontracting supplier through the collaborative optimization module, outputs corresponding judgment results and response measures, and improves the traceability and hierarchical treatment pertinence of the subcontracting management process.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of project subcontracting management technology, specifically a full-process collaborative optimization system based on subcontracting suppliers. Background Technology

[0002] During the implementation of construction projects, general contractors legally subcontract specialized engineering, labor operations, or special tasks to qualified and capable professional units, covering multiple professional fields such as civil engineering, mechanical and electrical engineering, decoration, and installation. These subcontractors are the core execution force in the construction process, characterized by their large number, strong professional overlap, and high degree of overlap in their work interfaces. Their performance directly determines the project's progress, quality, safety, and cost, making them key entities for project fulfillment. Furthermore, the level of collaboration among subcontractors is a core factor directly determining the success or failure of the project. Poor collaboration can easily lead to unclear construction interfaces, mutual shirking of responsibility, disjointed work processes, and wasted resources, resulting in delays, cost overruns, and even quality and safety hazards. Efficient collaboration, on the other hand, enables optimized resource allocation, seamless work process integration, and shared risk management, effectively improving construction efficiency while ensuring the smooth achievement of project progress, quality, and cost targets. It is a crucial link in improving the overall management level of the project.

[0003] Currently, the risk transmission mechanism of traditional full-process collaborative optimization systems based on subcontractors is inadequate. Risks identified by the general contractor are difficult to effectively transmit to the subcontractor level, and the risk chain is prone to breakage. In scenarios with multiple parties working together, the boundaries of responsibility at the subcontractor interface are blurred, the process connection is disordered, responsibility drift and shirking occur frequently, and interface conflicts are difficult to control. In addition, the supplier's performance evaluation focuses only on the completion rate of rectification upon completion of acceptance, ignoring the rebound of construction quality, defect recurrence, and quality assurance response capabilities in the later stages, and cannot achieve dynamic management and control throughout the entire process. Summary of the Invention

[0004] To address the shortcomings of existing technologies, this invention provides a full-process collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors. This system has advantages such as improving the completeness of subcontractor performance status assessment, enhancing the traceability of subcontract management processes, and improving the targeted nature of hierarchical handling. It solves the problem that traditional full-process collaborative optimization systems based on subcontractors are prone to gaps in the risk chain and cannot achieve dynamic control throughout the entire process.

[0005] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides the following technical solution: a full-process collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors, including a full-process data collection module, a preliminary preparation module, a mid-term execution module, a post-acceptance module, and a collaborative optimization module; The full-process data acquisition module connects to the enterprise bidding management system and the project management system to acquire full-process project management data and subcontractor supplier management data, and classifies them into pre-process datasets, mid-process datasets and post-process datasets. The preliminary preparation module assesses the overall performance stability of each subcontractor based on the preliminary dataset and generates a corresponding stability index. ; The mid-term execution module evaluates the construction coordination level of each subcontractor based on the mid-term dataset and generates a corresponding coordination index. ; The post-acceptance module evaluates the performance quality of subcontracted projects based on the post-acceptance dataset and generates a corresponding rebound index. ; The collaborative optimization module is configured with a fixed range of stable threshold intervals. Collaborative threshold range and rebound threshold range Combined with the stability index Synergy Index and rebound index It determines the stability level, coordination level, and resilience level of subcontractors, and outputs the corresponding judgment results and response measures.

[0006] Preferably, the preliminary dataset includes the cumulative number of personnel transferred out, the cumulative number of personnel transferred in, the average number of personnel on duty, the duration of equipment conflicts, the total planned usage time of equipment, the number of personnel replacements in key positions, the total number of positions established in key positions, the number of types of key materials, the actual amount of key materials delivered, the planned amount of key materials delivered, the number of responsibility drift events, the total number of subcontractor interface handovers, the area of ​​overlapping responsibilities among multiple subcontractors, the total area of ​​subcontractor interfaces, the total number of cross-processes, the delay duration caused by process conflicts, the total duration of subcontract contracts, the total number of risk items, the total number of nodes in the risk transmission chain, the total number of mandatory working conditions, and the number of matching working conditions that the corresponding suppliers have stably met.

[0007] Preferably, the interim dataset includes the total number of process windows for each project, the actual timestamp of the arrival and acceptance of materials at the process window, the planned timestamp of the arrival of materials at the process window, the actual construction duration of the process window, the planned construction duration of the process window, and the number of subsequent related rework processes actually caused by the rework of the process window.

[0008] Preferably, the post-processing dataset includes the cumulative number of rectification issues for each project, the total number of rectification issues, the total number of comparative sampling items, the number of deviation items, the total number of valid repair requests during the warranty period, and the actual warranty response time.

[0009] Preferably, the stability index The calculation process is as follows: S11. Extract items based on the previous dataset. Early management data and subcontractor supplier management data; S12, Calculation Items Resource sustainability coefficient of a single supplier ; S13, Calculation Items Individual supplier liability drift coefficient ; S14, Calculation Items Risk transmission coefficient of a single supplier ; S15, Calculation Items Operating condition adaptability coefficient of a single supplier ; S16, Normalization Processing Items Resource sustainability coefficient of a single supplier Responsibility drift coefficient Risk transmission coefficient Adaptability coefficient to operating conditions Unified mapping to ; S17. Based on S11-S16, calculate the items. Stability index of a single supplier .

[0010] Preferably, the synergy index The calculation process is as follows: S21. Extract items based on the interim dataset. Mid-term management data and subcontractor management data; S22, Calculation Items Window synchronization coefficient of a single supplier ; S23, Calculation Items Process rhythm coefficient of a single supplier ; S24, Calculation Items Rework impact coefficient of a single supplier ; S25. Based on S21-S24, calculate the items. Synergy Index of a Single Supplier .

[0011] Preferably, the rebound index The calculation process is as follows: S31. Extract items based on the later dataset. Post-contract management data and subcontractor supplier management data; S32, Calculation Items Recurrence coefficient of rectification for a single supplier ; S33, Calculation Items Entity deviation coefficient of a single supplier ; S34, Calculation Items Warranty Response Coefficient of a Single Supplier ; S35. Based on S31-S34, calculate the items. Rebound index of a single supplier .

[0012] Preferably, the stability level assessment process is as follows: Let the upper limit of the stability threshold range be denoted as The lower limit of the stability threshold interval is denoted as ; If the project Stability index of a single supplier > This indicates that the corresponding subcontractor has strong overall performance stability, with a stability level of 1. Response measures include prioritizing all types of subcontracting projects and conducting performance checks quarterly during the cooperation period. ≤ Project Stability index of a single supplier ≤ This indicates that the corresponding subcontractor's overall performance stability is moderate, with a stability level of 2. Response measures include allowing them to undertake routine subcontracting projects, conducting monthly performance checks during the cooperation period, submitting a specific resource guarantee plan and risk contingency plan before construction, and reporting resource allocation status 3 days in advance of risk points. If the project... Stability index of a single supplier < This indicates that the corresponding subcontractor has weak overall performance stability, with a stability level of 3. Response measures include strictly prohibiting them from undertaking the project. For any subsequent subcontracted projects, immediately terminate any unfulfilled contracts and activate the alternative supplier plan. Complete team restructuring within three months. Upon completion of restructuring, resume stability index testing. Assessment, until the stability index > Only after this can the supplier be permitted to carry out construction work.

[0013] Preferably, the collaboration level assessment process is as follows: Let the upper limit of the collaborative threshold range be denoted as The lower limit of the collaborative threshold interval is denoted as ; If the project Synergy Index of a Single Supplier > This indicates a high level of cooperation among subcontractors during project construction, with a cooperation level of 1. Response measures include allowing construction to proceed at full speed as originally planned, conducting cooperation status checks every 7 days for major processes, and every 14 days for non-major processes. ≤ Project Synergy Index of a Single Supplier ≤ This indicates that the level of cooperation between subcontractors and project construction suppliers is moderate, with a cooperation level of 2. Response measures include allowing normal construction work to proceed, increasing the frequency of communication between the general contractor's management and subcontractors, conducting cooperation status checks every 3 days for major processes, and every 7 days for non-major processes. If the project... Synergy Index of a Single Supplier < This indicates low level of cooperation among subcontractors during project construction, with a cooperation level of 3. Response measures include immediately suspending non-critical work processes; investigating material supply, process organization, and quality management issues of all subcontractors within the current and adjacent work windows; developing targeted rectification plans with clear deadlines; conducting daily cooperation status checks during the rectification period; and holding daily meetings between the general contractor's management and subcontractors. The cooperation index will be recalculated upon completion of rectification. And conduct a rating assessment, up to the synergy index. > Full-scale construction can only resume after that.

[0014] Preferably, the rebound level evaluation process is as follows: The upper limit of the rebound threshold range is denoted as... The lower limit of the rebound threshold range is denoted as ; If the project Rebound index of a single supplier > This indicates that the subcontractors' performance in the later stages of the project was excellent, with a low risk of legacy defects and a rebound level of 1. Response measures include prioritizing long-term warranty cooperation and conducting on-site inspections every 12 months during the warranty period. ≤ Project Rebound index of a single supplier ≤ This indicates that the performance quality of subcontractors in the later stages of the project was average, the risk of defect legacy was moderate, the rebound level was 2, and the response measures included conducting on-site inspections every 6 months during the warranty period. Rebound index of a single supplier < This indicates that the subcontractors in the later stages of the project have poor performance quality, high risk of defect legacy, and a rebound level of 3. The response measures include conducting a comprehensive on-site inspection every 3 months during the warranty period, requiring suppliers to submit special rectification plans and dispatch on-site maintenance personnel, and restricting the corresponding suppliers from participating in bidding for subsequent projects.

[0015] Compared with existing technologies, this invention provides a full-process collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors, which has the following beneficial effects: 1. This invention acquires project management data and subcontractor management data through a full-process data acquisition module, categorizing them into pre-project, mid-project, and post-project datasets. This addresses the pain points of traditional models, such as fragmented data, large errors in manual data collection, and severe information silos. It achieves automated, comprehensive, and traceable data collection. The pre-project preparation module assesses the overall performance stability of each subcontractor from four dimensions: continuous resource supply, cross-responsibility collaboration, risk transmission prevention, and work condition capability adaptation, generating corresponding stability indices. We should proactively identify suppliers with large resource fluctuations, unclear responsibility boundaries, and uncontrolled risk transmission, improve risk management across the entire chain, and enhance the completeness of subcontractor performance assessment.

[0016] 2. This invention uses a mid-term execution module to evaluate the construction collaboration level of each subcontractor based on three dimensions: window synchronization, process rhythm, and rework impact, and generates a corresponding collaboration index. This system enables real-time quantitative monitoring of construction coordination, promptly identifying issues such as delayed material delivery, deviations from construction schedules, and cascading effects of rework. It improves the efficiency of cross-operations, effectively controls schedule delays and quality risks, and ensures the smooth progress of project construction. The post-construction acceptance module evaluates the subcontractor's performance quality based on three dimensions: rectification reproducibility, physical deviations, and quality assurance response, generating a corresponding rebound index. It achieves full-chain quality control from completion acceptance to the warranty period, identifies the residual risks of construction defects, and the collaborative optimization module judges the stability level, coordination level and resilience level of subcontractors, outputs corresponding judgment results and response measures, realizes hierarchical control and dynamic optimization of subcontractors throughout the entire process, matches the corresponding control intensity and resource investment according to different risk levels, and improves the traceability of the subcontract management process and the targeted hierarchical handling. Attached Figure Description

[0017] Figure 1 This is a system flowchart of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0018] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0019] Example Please see Figure 1 Table 1 shows the experimental data for the stability index, Table 2 shows the experimental data for the collaboration index, and Table 3 shows the experimental data for the rebound index. This invention provides a full-process collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors, including a full-process data acquisition module, a preliminary preparation module, a mid-term execution module, a post-acceptance module, and a collaborative optimization module. The full-process data acquisition module connects to the enterprise bidding management system and project management system to acquire full-process project management data and subcontractor supplier management data, and classifies them into pre-process datasets, mid-process datasets and post-process datasets. The preliminary preparation module assesses the overall performance stability of each subcontractor based on the preliminary dataset and generates a corresponding stability index. ; Stability Index The calculation process is as follows: S11. Extract items based on the previous dataset. Early management data and subcontractor supplier management data; S12, Calculation Items Resource sustainability coefficient of a single supplier This is used to characterize the stability of the supplier's continuous supply of manpower, equipment, key positions, and material resources throughout the project cycle, and its expression is as follows: In the formula, Indicates project The cumulative number of people transferred out within the period (from the start of construction to the current point). Indicates project The cumulative number of people transferred in during the period, Indicates project Average number of employees on duty during the period Indicates project The two-way volatility of personnel within the cycle, if Forced truncation ; In the formula, Indicates project Within the cycle Secondary device conflict duration Indicates project The total planned usage time of the equipment. Indicates project The equipment conflict rate within the period, with a value range of: No need to truncate; In the formula, Indicates project The number of personnel changes in key positions during the period. Key positions refer to project managers, technical supervisors, safety supervisors, quality supervisors, and foremen of various specialties, etc. Indicates project Total number of key positions Indicates project The turnover rate of key positions during the period, if Forced truncation ; In the formula, Indicates the number of main material types. Indicates the first The actual amount of the main materials delivered Indicates the first The planned quantity of each major material to be delivered, if the deviation of a single major material is... Forced truncation , Indicates project Material volatility within the cycle; After being cut off, , , and All are dimensionless values. In the formula, Represents the weight, and satisfies ; S13, Calculation Items Individual supplier liability drift coefficient This is used to characterize the clarity and collaborative stability of the division of responsibilities at the construction interface in scenarios involving multiple subcontractors and overlapping operations. Its expression is as follows: In the formula, Indicates project Number of liability drift events within the period (such as shirking responsibility among multiple subcontractors, unclear construction interfaces, etc.). Indicates project Total number of subcontractor interface handovers within the period. Indicates project Frequency of construction interface responsibility drift within the cycle; In the formula, Indicates project Area of ​​overlapping responsibilities among multiple subcontractors Indicates project Total area of ​​the subcontracted interface Indicates project The overlap rate of responsibilities at the construction interface; In the formula, This represents the total number of overlapping processes. Indicates project No. Regarding the delay time caused by process conflicts, Indicates project The total duration of the subcontract, Indicates project Construction interface process conflict rate; S14, Calculation Items Risk transmission coefficient of a single supplier This is used to characterize the supplier's ability to mitigate upstream risks and the degree of risk attenuation in the subcontracting chain. It is quantified as the degree of risk attenuation in the transmission chain, and its expression is as follows: In the formula, Indicates the input number The total number of risk events at each risk node (the number of risk events transmitted from upstream). Indicates the first The total number of risk events output by each risk node (the number of risk events that were not blocked or passed on to downstream). Indicates the first The number of risk events attenuated at each risk node (i.e., the number of risk events successfully blocked at that node); In the formula, Indicates project The total number of nodes in the risk transmission chain. Indicates the first The number of risk events at each risk node attenuation This represents the absolute difference in the amount of risk attenuation between two adjacent nodes. The smaller the difference, the smoother the risk transmission and the more stable the blocking ability. Specifically, risk events refer to specific events that may affect project progress, quality, and safety, such as material delays, equipment failures, personnel shortages, and design changes. Each independent event is counted as one risk event. Risk nodes refer to the responsible parties in the risk transmission chain, such as owner → general contractor → professional subcontractor → labor subcontractor. Each responsible party is one node. S15. Due to the varying stability of the same supplier under different operating conditions, the calculation items... Operating condition adaptability coefficient of a single supplier This is used to characterize the degree of matching between the actual working conditions of the project and the supplier's specific capabilities. The expression is as follows: In the formula, Indicates project Total number of mandatory operating conditions Indicates project The number of matching working conditions that the corresponding supplier has stably met; Specifically, a work condition refers to an independent working condition during project construction that has clear and mandatory requirements on the supplier's specific capabilities. Each indivisible working condition is counted as one work condition, such as night construction, 24-hour continuous pouring, work in moderate rain or below, work at heights above 10 meters, high-altitude cross-operations above three floors, confined space work, blasting operations, and work in low-temperature environments. Mandatory work conditions are also included. The project's technical department, based on the construction organization design, site conditions, and schedule requirements, clearly lists all the mandatory work conditions that this subcontracted project must meet. Based on this, the supplier's qualification documents, historical performance, and resource allocation are checked item by item. Only those that fully meet all the mandatory requirements of the work condition are counted as one matching item. Items that partially meet the requirements, lack relevant qualifications, or have no similar performance are not counted. The total number of work condition items finally matched by the supplier is then calculated. , ; S16, Normalization Processing Items Resource sustainability coefficient of a single supplier Responsibility drift coefficient Risk transmission coefficient Adaptability coefficient to operating conditions This is used to eliminate the dimensional differences between different parameters and to uniformly map them to... Its expression is as follows: In the formula, Indicates project The original parameter values, This indicates the maximum value of the corresponding parameter among all parameter-based subcontracting suppliers within the same type of project and the same timeframe. This indicates the minimum value of the corresponding parameter among all parameter-based subcontracting suppliers within the same type of project and the same timeframe. This represents the normalized parameter value; S17. Based on S11-S16, calculate the items. Stability index of a single supplier Its expression is as follows: In the formula, Represents the weight, and satisfies ; Specifically, the stability of subcontracting projects and suppliers is quantitatively assessed from four dimensions: continuous resource supply, cross-responsibility coordination, risk transmission prevention, and operational capability adaptation. This involves not only assessing whether suppliers possess resources, but also how long those resources can be stably supplied, and the resulting stability index. This value is used to characterize the ability of subcontractors to stably complete the current project. The higher the value, the smaller the fluctuation of performance risk, the more continuous the resource supply, the higher the collaboration efficiency, and the more controllable the risk transmission. The following is the experimental data for the stability index, as shown in Table 1: Table 1: Experimental Data for the Stability Index In Table 1, the stability index experimental data selected Bridge Main Structure Construction Project A as the experimental target. The project period was from January 1, 2026 to May 25, 2026 (a total of 145 days). The participating subcontractors were five construction engineering companies: a, b, c, d, and e. The experimental data below all correspond to construction engineering company a in Project A. Material volatility During the calculation process, the actual amount of steel reinforcement delivered was 1200t, and the planned amount was 1150t; the actual amount of concrete delivered was 8500m³, and the planned amount was 8200m³; the actual amount of formwork delivered was 15000m², and the planned amount was 14200m²; the actual amount of steel strand delivered was 320t, and the planned amount was 305t. The deviation of all individual main materials was ≤1, and no cutting was required. Resource sustainability coefficient The weights are set as follows: , , , ; The risk transmission chain for Bridge Main Structure Construction Project A is as follows: Owner → General Contractor → Subcontractor → Labor Subcontractor (a total of 4 nodes). The total number of risk items input to the owner node is 12, and the total number of risk items output is 8. The total number of risk items input to the general contractor node is 8, and the total number of risk items output is 5. The total number of risk items input to the subcontractor node is 5, and the total number of risk items output is 2. The total number of risk items input to the labor subcontractor node is 2, and the total number of risk items output is 1. After normalization, the resource sustainability coefficient The normalized value is 0.8072, and the liability drift coefficient is... The normalized value is 0.929, and the risk transmission coefficient is... The normalized value is 0.197, and the working condition adaptation coefficient is... The normalized value is 0.6666; Stability Index The weights are set as follows: , , , ; The collaborative optimization module is set with a fixed range of stable threshold intervals. Used to quickly determine the stability level and stability threshold range of subcontracting suppliers. The calibration method is as follows: By utilizing a comprehensive subcontractor supplier management database, historical project samples with different overall performance stability levels were screened, covering various scenarios such as stability level 1 (strong performance stability), stability level 2 (medium performance stability), and stability level 3 (weak performance stability). Core data for calculating the stability index of the sample projects (such as resource sustainability coefficient) were extracted. Responsibility drift coefficient Risk transmission coefficient Adaptability coefficient to operating conditions Based on subcontract execution records and subsequent project performance results (such as project delay rate, quality accident rate, safety accident rate, cost overrun rate, etc.), different candidate stability threshold ranges are set. In each calibration experiment, the comprehensive performance stability level of subcontractors is classified according to the candidate threshold range. The matching degree between the classification results and the actual project performance survey conclusions is recorded. Then, combined with the dynamic performance monitoring data of subcontractors, the stability index of sample projects under different management intervention intensities is simulated. The changing trends were analyzed, and the upper and lower limits of the candidate threshold intervals were adjusted. Multiple verification experiments were conducted to record the impact of threshold interval settings on the evaluation of subcontractor stability levels and subsequent subcontractor task allocation. For each candidate threshold interval, the collected sample monitoring data and dynamic simulation results were used as inputs to count the number of times low-stability level suppliers were misjudged as high-stability level suppliers due to improper interval settings (counted as over-evaluation), the number of times high-stability level suppliers were misjudged as low-stability level suppliers (counted as under-evaluation), and the degree of consistency between the stability level classification results and the subsequent subcontractor project performance (such as on-time completion rate, quality pass rate, zero-accident rate, cost control rate, etc.). Finally, the interval range that minimizes both over-evaluation and under-evaluation rates and has the highest consistency with the subsequent subcontractor project performance was selected as the stability threshold interval. The preferred range; In Table 1, the stability threshold range is shown in the experimental data of the stability index. The preferred range is defined as 0.6-0.75. Based on the judgment, Stability Index of a Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. in Bridge Main Structure Construction Project A < This indicates that the overall performance stability of the corresponding subcontractor is moderate, the risk transmission is basically controllable, the stability level is 2, and the response measures include allowing the subcontractor to undertake regular subcontracting projects, conducting a performance inspection once a month during the cooperation period, submitting a special resource guarantee plan and risk emergency plan before construction, and reporting the resource allocation status 3 days in advance of risk nodes. The mid-term execution module assesses the level of construction collaboration among subcontractors based on the mid-term dataset and generates corresponding collaboration indices. ; Synergy Index The calculation process is as follows: S21. Extract items based on the interim dataset. Mid-term management data and subcontractor management data; S22, Calculation Items Window synchronization coefficient of a single supplier This is used to characterize the degree of matching between the material arrival time and the process window, and its expression is as follows: In the formula, Indicates project The total number of process windows, Indicates project No. The weight of each process window, and satisfying , Indicates project No. The actual timestamp of the arrival and acceptance of materials at each process window. Indicates project No. The planned timestamps for material arrival at each process window. Indicates project No. The allowable deviation time for material arrival at each process window (i.e., the deviation time stipulated in the subcontract), when the window synchronization coefficient... When the calculated value is less than 0, it is taken as 0; when it is greater than 1, it is taken as 1. S23, Calculation Items Process rhythm coefficient of a single supplier This is used to characterize the degree of deviation between the construction rhythm of each process and the plan, and its expression is as follows: In the formula, Indicates project No. Actual construction time for each process window Indicates project No. The planned construction time for each process window Indicates project No. The maximum allowable fluctuation in the construction time of each process window (i.e., the fluctuation time agreed upon in the subcontract). S24, Calculation Items Rework impact coefficient of a single supplier This is used to characterize the degree of chain reaction caused by rework in a single process, and its expression is as follows: In the formula, Indicates project No. The number of subsequent related rework processes actually triggered by rework at each process window. Indicates project No. The maximum number of associated rework processes allowed for each process window (i.e., the number of processes stipulated in the subcontract). S25. Based on S21-S24, calculate the items. Synergy Index of a Single Supplier Its expression is as follows: In the formula, Represents the weight, and satisfies ; The following is the experimental data for the synergy index, as shown in Table 2: Table 2: Experimental Data for the Synergy Index In Table 2, the experimental data of the synergy index were selected. The main structure construction project A of the bridge was selected as the experimental target. The mid-term construction stage was evaluated from March 1, 2026 to May 25, 2026 (a total of 86 days). There were 5 key process windows (foundation reinforcement binding, formwork installation, concrete pouring, prestressing tensioning, and beam curing). The following experimental data all correspond to a construction engineering company in project A. The base date is: March 1, 2026 = Day 0 (time unit: day); The total weight of each process window is 1, among which the weight of the foundation rebar tying process is 1. The time limit is 0.3. The planned delivery date is the 5th day, and the actual delivery date is the 6th day. The allowable deviation time is 2 days. The absolute value of the difference between the actual and planned delivery time is 1 day. The planned construction time is 3 days, and the actual construction time is 3.5 days. The maximum allowable fluctuation is 1.0 day. The overdue time is 0.5 days. The actual number of subsequent related rework processes caused by rework is 1. The maximum number of related rework processes allowed to be caused by rework is 2. Template installation process weight The value is 0.25. The planned delivery date is the 12th day, and the actual delivery date is the 13th day. The allowable deviation time is 1 day, and the absolute value of the time difference is 1 day. The planned construction time is 4 days, and the actual construction time is 4.2 days. The maximum allowable fluctuation is 0.8 days, and the overdue time is 0.2 days. The actual number of subsequent related rework processes caused by rework is 0, and the maximum number of related rework processes allowed to be caused by rework is 1. Weight of concrete pouring process The value is 0.25. The planned delivery date is the 18th day. The actual delivery date is on time. The absolute value of the time difference is 0. The planned construction time is 2 days. The actual construction time is 2 days. The maximum allowable fluctuation is 0.5 days. The overdue period is 0 days. The actual number of subsequent related rework processes caused by rework is 0. The maximum number of related rework processes allowed to be caused by rework is 1. Weight of prestressed tensioning process The value is 0.15. The planned delivery date is the 35th day, and the actual delivery date is the 37th day. The allowable deviation time is 2 days, and the absolute value of the time difference is 2 days. The planned construction time is 1 day, and the actual construction time is 1.3 days. The maximum allowable fluctuation is 0.5 days, and the overdue period is 0 days. The actual number of subsequent related rework processes caused by rework is 1, and the maximum number of related rework processes allowed to be caused by rework is 1. Weight of beam maintenance procedures The value is 0.05. The planned delivery date is the 42nd day, and the actual delivery date is the 42nd day. The allowable deviation time is 3 days, and the absolute value of the time difference is 0 days. The planned construction time is 14 days, and the actual construction time is 14 days. The maximum allowable fluctuation is 2 days, and the overdue period is 0 days. The actual number of subsequent related rework processes caused by rework is 0, and the maximum number of related rework processes allowed to be caused by rework is 0. Synergy Index The weights are set as follows: , , ; The collaborative optimization module has a fixed range of collaborative threshold intervals. Used to quickly determine the level of collaboration with subcontractors, and the collaboration threshold range. The calibration method is as follows: By utilizing a database of subcontractor-supplier end-to-end collaborative management, historical project samples with different levels of collaboration were screened, covering various scenarios such as Level 1 (high collaboration), Level 2 (medium collaboration), and Level 3 (low collaboration). Core data for calculating the collaboration index of the sample projects (such as window synchronization coefficient) were extracted. Process rhythm coefficient Rework impact coefficient The study included subcontracting process execution records and subsequent project construction results (such as schedule delay rate, material waste rate, smoothness of process connection, rework rate, and proportion of on-site coordination costs). Different candidate collaboration threshold ranges were set. In each calibration experiment, the collaboration level of subcontracting suppliers was classified based on the candidate threshold range. The matching degree between the classification results and the actual construction collaboration survey conclusions was recorded. Combined with dynamic construction monitoring data of the subcontracting projects, the collaboration index of the sample projects under different collaboration management intervention intensities was simulated. The changing trends were analyzed, and the upper and lower limits of the candidate threshold intervals were adjusted. Multiple verification experiments were conducted to record the impact of threshold interval settings on the assessment of subcontractor collaboration levels and subsequent construction management. For each candidate threshold interval, the collected sample monitoring data and dynamic simulation results were used as inputs to count the number of times low-collaboration level suppliers were misjudged as high-collaboration level suppliers due to improper interval settings (counted as over-assessment), the number of times high-collaboration level suppliers were misjudged as low-collaboration level suppliers (counted as under-assessment), and the degree of consistency between the collaboration level classification results and subsequent construction results (such as schedule achievement rate, material supply timeliness rate, process connection efficiency, rework control rate, and on-site conflict occurrence rate). Finally, the interval range that minimizes both over-assessment and under-assessment rates and has the highest consistency with subsequent construction results was selected as the collaboration threshold interval. The preferred range; In Table 2, the experimental data of the synergy index show the synergy threshold range. The preferred range is defined as 0.65-0.8. Based on the assessment, the synergy index of a construction engineering company in bridge main structure construction project A is [value missing]. < This indicates low level of cooperation among subcontractors during project construction, with a cooperation level of 3. Response measures include immediately suspending non-critical work processes; investigating material supply, process organization, and quality management issues of all subcontractors within the current and adjacent work windows; developing targeted rectification plans with clear deadlines; conducting daily cooperation status checks during the rectification period; and holding daily meetings between the general contractor's management and subcontractors. The cooperation index will be recalculated upon completion of rectification. And conduct a rating assessment, up to the synergy index. > Full-scale construction can only resume after that; The post-acceptance module evaluates the performance quality of subcontracted projects based on the post-acceptance dataset and generates a corresponding rebound index. ; Rebound Index The calculation process is as follows: S31. Extract items based on the later dataset. Post-contract management data and subcontractor supplier management data; S32, Calculation Items Recurrence coefficient of rectification for a single supplier This is used to quantify the degree to which problems recur after rectification, and its expression is as follows: In the formula, Indicates project No. The number of rectification attempts is accumulated. The first time a rectification is successful, it counts as 1. Each subsequent rectification attempt counts as 1. Indicates project The total number of rectification issues discovered during the later completion and acceptance phase. Indicates project The total number of repetitions of all issues requiring rectification; S33, Calculation Items Entity deviation coefficient of a single supplier This is used to quantify the degree of consistency between as-built data and the actual site, and its expression is as follows: In the formula, This indicates the total number of items checked in the comparison between the as-built documentation and the actual site (including material type, equipment parameters, pipeline routing, structural dimensions, change orders, etc.). Indicates the number of discrepancies found during the comparison; S34, Calculation Items Warranty Response Coefficient of a Single Supplier This is used to quantify the timeliness of services during the warranty period, and its expression is as follows: In the formula, Indicates project Total number of valid repair requests during the warranty period. Indicates project No. The actual response time from reporting a warranty issue to the supplier arriving on-site. This indicates the maximum warranty response time stipulated in the contract; S35. Based on S31-S34, calculate the items. Rebound index of a single supplier Its expression is as follows: In the formula, Represents the weight, and satisfies ; The following are the experimental data for the rebound index, as shown in Table 3: Table 3: Experimental Data for the Rebound Index In Table 3, the rebound index experimental data is used to select the main bridge structure construction project A as the experimental target. The evaluation period for the later completion and acceptance stage is from May 1, 2026 to May 25, 2026 (a total of 25 days). The following experimental data all correspond to a construction engineering company in project A. The cumulative number of rectifications for each issue is as follows: 6 issues were rectified successfully on the first attempt; 1 issue concerning the thickness of the steel reinforcement protective layer was rectified successfully after 2 attempts; and 1 issue concerning the deviation of the embedded part position was rectified successfully after 3 attempts. Rebound Index The weights are set as follows: , , ; The collaborative optimization module is set with a fixed range of rebound threshold intervals. Used to quickly determine the springback level and springback threshold range of subcontracting suppliers. The calibration method is as follows: By utilizing the subcontractor's end-to-end performance management database, historical project samples with different rebound levels were screened, covering various situations such as rebound level 1 (excellent performance quality), rebound level 2 (average performance quality), and rebound level 3 (poor performance quality). Core calculation data of the rebound index of the sample projects (such as the rectification recurrence coefficient) were extracted. Entity deviation coefficient Quality Assurance Response Coefficient The study included data on project completion and acceptance, warranty period execution records, and subsequent project performance results (such as defect recurrence rate during the warranty period, accuracy of data archiving, timely warranty response rate, owner satisfaction, and the proportion of post-construction maintenance costs). Different candidate rebound threshold ranges were set. In each calibration experiment, the sample project was categorized into subcontractor rebound levels based on the candidate threshold range. The matching degree between the categorization results and the actual post-construction performance survey conclusions was recorded. Combined with dynamic post-construction monitoring data of the subcontracted projects, the rebound index of the sample projects under different post-construction management intervention intensities was simulated. The changing trend was analyzed, and the upper and lower limits of the candidate threshold range were adjusted. Multiple verification experiments were conducted to record the impact of threshold range settings on the evaluation of subcontractor rebound levels and subsequent quality assurance management and supplier access. For each candidate threshold range, the collected sample monitoring data and dynamic simulation results were used as inputs to count the number of times low-rebound level suppliers were misjudged as high-rebound level suppliers due to improper range settings (counted as over-evaluation), the number of times high-rebound level suppliers were misjudged as low-rebound level suppliers (counted as under-evaluation), and the degree of fit between the rebound level classification results and subsequent performance (such as defect recurrence control rate during the warranty period, data consistency rate, quality assurance response rate, owner complaint rate, and subsequent rectification cost control rate). Finally, the range that minimizes both over-evaluation and under-evaluation rates and has the highest degree of fit with subsequent performance was selected as the rebound threshold range. The preferred range; In Table 3, the rebound index experimental data shows the rebound threshold range. The preferred range is defined as 0.65-0.8. Based on the judgment, <Rebound Index of a Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. in Bridge Main Structure Construction Project A> < This indicates that the performance quality of the subcontractors in the later stages of the project is average, the risk of defect legacy is moderate, the rebound level is level 2, and the response measures include conducting on-site inspections once every 6 months during the warranty period. The collaborative optimization module is set with a fixed range of stable threshold intervals. Collaborative threshold range and rebound threshold range Combined with the stability index Synergy Index and rebound index Determine the stability level, coordination level, and resilience level of subcontractors, and output the corresponding judgment results and response measures; The stability level assessment process is as follows: Let the upper limit of the stability threshold range be denoted as The lower limit of the stability threshold interval is denoted as ; If the project Stability index of a single supplier > This indicates that the corresponding subcontractor has strong overall performance stability, and risk transmission is fully controllable, with a stability level of 1. Response measures include prioritizing all types of subcontracting projects, especially allocating high-value, highly complex core subcontracting projects; appropriately simplifying contract approval and prepayment processes; and conducting performance checks quarterly during the cooperation period. ≤ Project Stability index of a single supplier ≤ This indicates that the overall performance stability of the corresponding subcontractor is moderate, risk transmission is basically controllable, and the stability level is 2. Response measures include allowing them to undertake routine subcontracting projects, conducting monthly performance checks during the cooperation period, submitting a specific resource guarantee plan and risk contingency plan before construction, and reporting resource allocation status 3 days in advance of risk points. If the project... Stability index of a single supplier < This indicates that the corresponding subcontractor has weak overall performance stability and uncontrollable risk transmission, with a stability level of 3. Response measures include strictly prohibiting them from undertaking projects. For any subsequent subcontracted projects, immediately terminate any unfulfilled contracts and activate the alternative supplier plan. Complete team restructuring within three months, including management team adjustments, resource replenishment, and improvement of the risk management system. Upon completion of restructuring, the stability index will be re-implemented. Assessment, until the stability index > Only after this can the supplier be permitted to carry out construction work; The collaborative level assessment process is as follows: Let the upper limit of the collaborative threshold range be denoted as The lower limit of the collaborative threshold interval is denoted as ; If the project Synergy Index of a Single Supplier > This indicates a high level of cooperation among subcontractors during project construction, with a cooperation level of 1. Response measures include allowing construction to proceed at full speed as originally planned, conducting cooperation status checks every 7 days for major processes, and every 14 days for non-major processes. ≤ Project Synergy Index of a Single Supplier ≤ This indicates that the level of cooperation between subcontractors and project construction suppliers is moderate, with a cooperation level of 2. Response measures include allowing normal construction work to proceed, increasing the frequency of communication between the general contractor's management and subcontractors, conducting cooperation status checks every 3 days for major processes, and every 7 days for non-major processes. If the project... Synergy Index of a Single Supplier < This indicates low level of cooperation among subcontractors during project construction, with a cooperation level of 3. Response measures include immediately suspending non-critical work processes; investigating material supply, process organization, and quality management issues of all subcontractors within the current and adjacent work windows; developing targeted rectification plans with clear deadlines; conducting daily cooperation status checks during the rectification period; and holding daily meetings between the general contractor's management and subcontractors. The cooperation index will be recalculated upon completion of rectification. And conduct a rating assessment, up to the synergy index. > Full-scale construction can only resume after that; The rebound level assessment process is as follows: The upper limit of the rebound threshold range is denoted as... The lower limit of the rebound threshold range is denoted as ; If the project Rebound index of a single supplier > This indicates that the subcontractors' performance in the later stages of the project was excellent, with a low risk of legacy defects and a rebound level of 1. Response measures include prioritizing long-term warranty cooperation and conducting on-site inspections every 12 months during the warranty period. ≤ Project Rebound index of a single supplier ≤ This indicates that the performance quality of subcontractors in the later stages of the project was average, the risk of defect legacy was moderate, the rebound level was 2, and the response measures included conducting on-site inspections every 6 months during the warranty period. Rebound index of a single supplier < This indicates that the subcontractors in the later stages of the project have poor performance quality, high risk of defect legacy, and a rebound level of 3. The response measures include conducting a comprehensive on-site inspection every 3 months during the warranty period, requiring suppliers to submit special rectification plans and dispatch on-site maintenance personnel, and restricting the corresponding suppliers from participating in bidding for subsequent projects.

[0020] In this embodiment, the project's full-process management data and subcontractor management data are acquired through a full-process data acquisition module and categorized into pre-project, mid-project, and post-project datasets. This addresses the pain points of traditional models, such as scattered data, large errors in manual data collection, and severe information silos, achieving automated, comprehensive, and traceable data collection. The pre-project preparation module evaluates the overall performance stability of each subcontractor from four dimensions: continuous resource supply, cross-responsibility collaboration, risk transmission prevention, and work condition capability adaptation, generating corresponding stability indices. To proactively identify suppliers with high resource volatility, unclear responsibility boundaries, and uncontrolled risk transmission, we will improve risk management across the entire chain and enhance the completeness of subcontractor performance assessment. The mid-term execution module will evaluate the construction coordination level of each subcontractor based on three dimensions: window synchronization, process rhythm, and rework impact, generating corresponding coordination indices. This system enables real-time quantitative monitoring of construction coordination, promptly identifying issues such as delayed material delivery, deviations from construction schedules, and cascading effects of rework. It improves the efficiency of cross-operations, effectively controls schedule delays and quality risks, and ensures the smooth progress of project construction. The post-construction acceptance module evaluates the subcontractor's performance quality based on three dimensions: rectification reproducibility, physical deviations, and quality assurance response, generating a corresponding rebound index. It achieves full-chain quality control from completion acceptance to the warranty period, identifies the residual risks of construction defects, and the collaborative optimization module judges the stability level, coordination level and resilience level of subcontractors, outputs corresponding judgment results and response measures, realizes hierarchical control and dynamic optimization of subcontractors throughout the entire process, matches the corresponding control intensity and resource investment according to different risk levels, and improves the traceability of the subcontract management process and the targeted hierarchical handling.

[0021] The threshold size is set to facilitate comparison. The size of the threshold depends on the amount of sample data and the number of bases set by those skilled in the art for each set of sample data; as long as it does not affect the ratio between the parameter and the quantized value, it is acceptable.

[0022] The above formulas are all derived from software simulation using a large amount of data and are selected to be close to the actual values. The coefficients in the formulas are set by those skilled in the art according to the actual situation. The above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention, but the protection scope of the present invention is not limited thereto. Any equivalent substitutions or changes made by those skilled in the art within the technical scope disclosed in the present invention, based on the technical solution and inventive concept of the present invention, should be covered within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A full-process collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors, characterized by: It includes a full-process data collection module, a preliminary preparation module, a mid-term execution module, a post-acceptance module, and a collaborative optimization module; The full-process data acquisition module connects to the enterprise bidding management system and the project management system to acquire full-process project management data and subcontractor supplier management data, and classifies them into pre-process datasets, mid-process datasets and post-process datasets. The preliminary preparation module assesses the overall performance stability of each subcontractor based on the preliminary dataset and generates a corresponding stability index. ; The mid-term execution module evaluates the construction coordination level of each subcontractor based on the mid-term dataset and generates a corresponding coordination index. ; The post-acceptance module evaluates the performance quality of subcontracted projects based on the post-acceptance dataset and generates a corresponding rebound index. ; The collaborative optimization module is configured with a fixed range of stable threshold intervals. Collaborative threshold range and rebound threshold range Combined with the stability index Synergy Index and rebound index It determines the stability level, coordination level, and resilience level of subcontractors, and outputs the corresponding judgment results and response measures.

2. The end-to-end collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors as described in claim 1, characterized in that: The preliminary dataset includes the cumulative number of personnel transferred out and transferred in for each project cycle, the average number of personnel on duty, the duration of equipment conflicts, the total planned usage time of equipment, the number of personnel replacements in key positions, the total number of positions in key positions, the number of types of key materials, the actual amount of key materials delivered, the planned amount of key materials delivered, the number of responsibility drift events, the total number of subcontractor interface handovers, the area of ​​overlapping responsibilities among multiple subcontractors, the total area of ​​subcontractor interfaces, the total number of cross-processes, the delay duration caused by process conflicts, the total duration of subcontract contracts, the total number of risk items, the total number of nodes in the risk transmission chain, the total number of mandatory working conditions, and the number of matching working conditions that the corresponding suppliers have stably met.

3. The end-to-end collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors as described in claim 2, characterized in that: The interim dataset includes the total number of process windows for each project, the actual timestamp of the arrival and acceptance of materials at the process window, the planned timestamp of the arrival of materials at the process window, the actual construction duration of the process window, the planned construction duration of the process window, and the number of subsequent related rework processes actually caused by the rework of the process window.

4. The end-to-end collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors as described in claim 3, characterized in that: The post-processing dataset includes the cumulative number of rectification issues for each project, the total number of rectification issues, the total number of items for comparison and sampling, the number of deviation items, the total number of valid repair requests during the warranty period, and the actual warranty response time.

5. The end-to-end collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors as described in claim 4, characterized in that: The stability index The calculation process is as follows: S11. Extract items based on the previous dataset. Early management data and subcontractor supplier management data; S12, Calculation Items Resource sustainability coefficient of a single supplier ; S13, Calculation Items Individual supplier liability drift coefficient ; S14, Calculation Items Risk transmission coefficient of a single supplier ; S15, Calculation Items Operating condition adaptability coefficient of a single supplier ; S16, Normalization Processing Items Resource sustainability coefficient of a single supplier Responsibility drift coefficient Risk transmission coefficient Adaptability coefficient to operating conditions Unified mapping to ; S17. Based on S11-S16, calculate the items. Stability index of a single supplier .

6. The end-to-end collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors as described in claim 5, characterized in that: The synergy index The calculation process is as follows: S21. Extract items based on the interim dataset. Mid-term management data and subcontractor management data; S22, Calculation Items Window synchronization coefficient of a single supplier ; S23, Calculation Items Process rhythm coefficient of a single supplier ; S24, Calculation Items Rework impact coefficient of a single supplier ; S25. Based on S21-S24, calculate the items. Synergy Index of a Single Supplier .

7. The end-to-end collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors as described in claim 6, characterized in that: The rebound index The calculation process is as follows: S31. Extract items based on the later dataset. Post-contract management data and subcontractor supplier management data; S32, Calculation Items Recurrence coefficient of rectification for a single supplier ; S33, Calculation Items Entity deviation coefficient of a single supplier ; S34, Calculation Items Warranty Response Coefficient of a Single Supplier ; S35. Based on S31-S34, calculate the items. Rebound index of a single supplier .

8. The end-to-end collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors as described in claim 7, characterized in that: The stability level assessment process is as follows: Let the upper limit of the stability threshold range be denoted as The lower limit of the stability threshold interval is denoted as ; If the project Stability index of a single supplier > This indicates that the corresponding subcontractor has strong overall performance stability, with a stability level of 1. Response measures include prioritizing all types of subcontracting projects and conducting performance checks quarterly during the cooperation period. ≤ Project Stability index of a single supplier ≤ This indicates that the corresponding subcontractor's overall performance stability is moderate, with a stability level of 2. Response measures include allowing them to undertake routine subcontracting projects, conducting monthly performance checks during the cooperation period, submitting a specific resource guarantee plan and risk contingency plan before construction, and reporting resource allocation status 3 days in advance of risk points. If the project... Stability index of a single supplier < This indicates that the corresponding subcontractor has weak overall performance stability, with a stability level of 3. Response measures include strictly prohibiting them from undertaking the project. For any subsequent subcontracted projects, immediately terminate any unfulfilled contracts and activate the alternative supplier plan. Complete team restructuring within three months. Upon completion of restructuring, resume stability index testing. Assessment, until the stability index > Only after this can the supplier be permitted to carry out construction work.

9. The end-to-end collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors as described in claim 8, characterized in that: The collaboration level assessment process is as follows: Let the upper limit of the collaborative threshold range be denoted as The lower limit of the collaborative threshold interval is denoted as ; If the project Synergy Index of a Single Supplier > This indicates a high level of cooperation among subcontractors during project construction, with a cooperation level of 1. Response measures include allowing construction to proceed at full speed as originally planned, conducting cooperation status checks every 7 days for major processes, and every 14 days for non-major processes. ≤ Project Synergy Index of a Single Supplier ≤ This indicates that the level of cooperation between subcontractors and project construction suppliers is moderate, with a cooperation level of 2. Response measures include allowing normal construction work to proceed, increasing the frequency of communication between the general contractor's management and subcontractors, conducting cooperation status checks every 3 days for major processes, and every 7 days for non-major processes. If the project... Synergy Index of a Single Supplier < This indicates low level of cooperation among subcontractors during project construction, with a cooperation level of 3. Response measures include immediately suspending non-critical work processes; investigating material supply, process organization, and quality management issues of all subcontractors within the current and adjacent work windows; developing targeted rectification plans with clear deadlines; conducting daily cooperation status checks during the rectification period; and holding daily meetings between the general contractor's management and subcontractors. The cooperation index will be recalculated upon completion of rectification. And conduct a rating assessment, up to the synergy index. > Full-scale construction can only resume after that.

10. The end-to-end collaborative optimization system based on subcontractors as described in claim 9, characterized in that: The rebound level assessment process is as follows: The upper limit of the rebound threshold range is denoted as... The lower limit of the rebound threshold range is denoted as ; If the project Rebound index of a single supplier > This indicates that the subcontractors' performance in the later stages of the project was excellent, with a low risk of legacy defects and a rebound level of 1. Response measures include prioritizing long-term warranty cooperation and conducting on-site inspections every 12 months during the warranty period. ≤ Project Rebound index of a single supplier ≤ This indicates that the performance quality of subcontractors in the later stages of the project was average, the risk of defect legacy was moderate, the rebound level was 2, and the response measures included conducting on-site inspections every 6 months during the warranty period. Rebound index of a single supplier < This indicates that the subcontractors in the later stages of the project have poor performance quality, high risk of defect legacy, and a rebound level of 3. The response measures include conducting a comprehensive on-site inspection every 3 months during the warranty period, requiring suppliers to submit special rectification plans and dispatch on-site maintenance personnel, and restricting the corresponding suppliers from participating in bidding for subsequent projects.

Images