Surety underwriters tend to look like numbers people, and they are. They care about working capital, bank lines, and net worth. But the character of a contractor’s job history sits right alongside the financials. The files that move cleanly through an underwriting committee share a pattern: projects that look like the current ask in size and scope, crews that finished strong, strong subcontractor control, and evidence that the principal learned from the few jobs that went sideways. When an account stalls, the story almost always starts in the job schedule. The throughline between history and risk is plain once you know where to look.
I have sat in meetings where a CFO came armed with audited statements and a solid bank letter, yet the surety cut the bond line in half after flipping through two pages: the WIP and the completed jobs schedule. Why? Because construction, or any bonded performance environment, accumulates risk one project at a time. Your track record is the most predictive data set underwriters have for what you will do next. Financial statements record outcomes; job history shows causes.
This piece unpacks how underwriters read job history for performance bonds, which patterns earn trust, which ones raise eyebrows, and how contractors can shape their records so the next bond request gets a yes without drama.
What underwriters mean by “job history”
The phrase sounds simple, but in the underwriting context it reaches beyond a list of finished work. Sureties triangulate your record from several documents and conversations. They look for repeatable behaviors that correlate with on-time, on-budget delivery, or with defaults and claims. A well-documented history helps underwriters answer five questions that determine pricing and capacity.
- Can this team deliver projects of this size and complexity under the conditions proposed? Do they manage cost, schedule, and subcontractor risk in a disciplined way? When problems arise, do they resolve them without litigation, liquidated damages, or surety involvement? Is growth paced and funded, or opportunistic and fragile? Are the numbers in the WIP consistent with what the field is experiencing?
Those answers come from a mix of narratives and numbers. The narratives live in project summaries, lessons learned writeups, references from owners and architects, and conversations with the surety. The numbers live in the work-in-progress schedule, gross profit fade analyses, change order logs, cash flow curves, and job cost reports. Underwriters weigh all of it.
The WIP schedule: heartbeat of the file
If a contractor hands me only one schedule, I want the WIP. It tells the story of execution in real time. Underwriters focus on three elements.
Percent complete and fade. If a job is 70 percent complete and has faded from a planned 9 percent margin to 5.2, the underwriter asks why. A single fade on an outlier job can be explained: a major scope gap discovered late, a weather event, a late owner decision. Fades across the board suggest estimating optimism, weak buyout, or poor cost controls. One national surety tracks GP fade on a rolling, trailing twelve-month basis; if average fade exceeds roughly 100 to 150 basis points across more than a third of current projects, expect questions and possibly a capped single job limit until the trend reverses.
Over/under billings. Consistent over-billings can signal strong cash management or aggressive front-loading. Modest over-billings aligned with stored materials and mobilization are fine. Large over-billings late in a job often mask cost problems and become a cash trap when punch hits. Deep under-billings raise liquidity concerns. If a contractor is 60 percent complete and under-billed by 15 percent because change orders remain unsigned, that under-billing represents unfunded work in place. Sureties discount unapproved changes heavily when sizing capacity.
Backlog mix and duration. A backlog made of fifteen small service jobs behaves differently than three multi-year public works projects. Underwriters match the current mix to history. If your record shows mastery of fast-turn interior buildouts, a leap into a $40 million wastewater plant looks like a different company. It is not an automatic no, but it will require joint venturing, added capital, or other risk mitigants.
Size matters, but trajectory matters more
Most sureties hold informal rules of thumb for step-ups in size. As a rough guide, underwriters like to see at least two to three completed jobs in the same scope at 80 to 100 percent of the requested bond size before approving a new high-water mark. The safest trajectory is a staircase: $5 million, then $7 million, then $10 million. The riskiest is a cliff: five years of $2 million work, then a $15 million lump sum school.
There are exceptions. I watched a heavy civil contractor jump from a $12 million top job to a $28 million DOT project and succeed. They brought in a senior PM from a competitor who had closed four projects above $30 million. They negotiated a robust mobilization payment and protected cash. They escrowed fuel and asphalt price risk via a hedging program the underwriter vetted. The surety said yes because the team’s job history, not just the company’s, matched the task. That last point deserves emphasis: underwriters weigh the personal project resumes of project executives, superintendents, and estimators. When leadership changes, your effective job history changes.
Complexity, not just contract value
Two $8 million jobs can carry very different risk. Underwriters parse complexity with a simple senses test informed by past outcomes: how many things can go wrong, how hard are they to detect early, and how expensive are they to fix late? A design-build healthcare fit-out with rigid infection control has narrower error margins than a tilt-wall warehouse. A job with phased occupancy, night shifts, and union jurisdictional boundaries adds operational complexity. A fixed price MEP-heavy renovation in an occupied hospital wing asks for contingency and deep controls.
Many underwriters keep a mental matrix: value on one axis, complexity on the other. They look for congruence between the upper-right quadrants of your history and your request. If your wins cluster in the lower-right (moderate value, low complexity), but the ask sits upper-left (low value, high complexity, like a specialized lab), they will want to see consultants, specialty subs, mockups, quality assurance plans, and time in preconstruction baked into the fee.
Change order behavior and owner relations
Change orders are a litmus test for discipline. Healthy contractors document changes promptly, price them fairly, and avoid financing the owner’s indecision. Underwriters look at the ratio of approved to pending changes and the average cycle time from proposal to executed change. If I see $3.2 million in pending changes on a $20 million contract that is 85 percent complete, I expect a detailed reconciliation. Some of that will convert; some will not. I want to know whether the owner is public or private, whether a dispute resolution board exists, and whether the contractor has a pattern of signing change directives without price clarity.
Letter-perfect paperwork does not guarantee payment, but sloppy change management reliably erodes margins. Underwriters also weigh the human side. They call owners and architects. Quiet reliability in those references beats glossy marketing. Notes from those calls often read the same: “They flag issues early, don’t surprise us, and staff the job with decision-makers.” That kind of comment lowers perceived risk more than a tenth of a point on working capital.
Subcontractor selection and control
Most contractor defaults start with a sub problem. The prime carries the bond, but the risk often lives three tiers down. Underwriters want to see a procurement approach that matches the work. This means competitive, prequalified subcontractors, realistic buyout schedules, and subcontract forms with pay-when-paid written to state law and with step-in rights aligned to the prime contract. If you accept a 10 percent price gap from a low sub with thin resumes on a critical system, plan on defending that choice.
Pay patterns matter. If the prime consistently sits on payables even when paid upstream, the subs will price that behavior into their bids or avoid the contractor entirely. The surety notices. They track lien and bond claim frequency. A moderate volume of notices can be normal in certain states. A trend of escalations to claims shapes the underwriter’s view of your job history more than any certification on your wall.
Schedule realism and recovery
The best schedulers build buffers where the work can absorb them, not at the end where they turn into wishful thinking. Underwriters ask to see baseline schedules, key milestone variance, and recovery plans. A schedule that floats between CPM software and a superintendent’s pocket notebook can work on small jobs if the superintendent is exceptional. On multi-trade critical path projects, casual scheduling shows up as stacked trades, out-of-sequence work, and expensive overtime in the last 15 percent. Underwriters scan for those late-stage cost accelerants when they review WIP and completed job narratives.
I recall a school project that missed three early permits and still finished on time with a modest margin. The difference was the PM’s recovery plan. He negotiated night shifts with the custodial union, prefabricated restroom pods offsite, and secured early occupancy zones for long-lead casework. The underwriter approved the next bond without a premium bump because the contractor demonstrated schedule resilience, not just luck.
Claims history and how you handled them
Everyone hits a rough job eventually. How you handle it is part of your permanent job history. Underwriters separate three categories: nuisance disputes that settle in the five figures with no schedule impact, contested claims that go to mediation or arbitration with partial recovery, and defaults that require surety intervention. The first two are survivable if they show reasonableness. The last one defines your account for years.
If you have a default, expect the underwriter to ask for a postmortem: scope, schedule, team changes, sub performance, owner actions, cash flow, and what controls changed afterward. Contractors who present a candid, specific analysis and demonstrate that the failure was bounded, not systemic, can rebuild capacity. I have seen sureties restore eight-figure single job limits two to three years after a claim when the contractor completed a string of smaller, clean jobs with the same project type and built working capital.
Geographic reach and authority requirements
Moving into a new state changes more than the drive time. Wage rules, licensing, lien laws, and bonding statutes vary in ways that affect risk. For public work, prompt pay timing and retainage differ. For private work, notice and cure periods around default do too. Underwriters do not veto geographic expansion, but they expect preparation. They will ask about local hires or partnerships, counsel on statutory nuances, and supply chain changes. If your job history includes multiple regions with good outcomes, the surety reads that as transferable discipline. If your record is entirely local and relational, an out-of-area win may look more fragile.
Financial echoes inside job history
Underwriting is not a silo; job history and financial health loop back into each other. Fade in gross profit shows up as compressed margins and reduced retained earnings. Deep under-billings tie up cash and draw bank lines, which show up on covenant reports. Change orders stuck in negotiation swell accounts receivable and weaken the quick ratio. Underwriters connect those dots. When job history is clean, the financials breathe. When job history strains, the financials wheeze.
Every underwriter I know holds two mental models at once. The first is formulaic: certain ratios must be above certain floors for certain sizes of work. The second is narrative: this Axcess Surety quotes contractor’s behaviors on jobs have produced good results when conditions look like this, and poor results when they look like that. The narrative can temper the formula. A contractor with middle-of-the-pack ratios but an excellent, consistent job delivery record in one niche can get better bond support than a contractor with stronger ratios and a scattered job history.
Growth, concentration, and the risks of hot markets
A hot sector tempts contractors to chase volume. I watched a small GC surf a wave of distribution center work. Revenues tripled in twenty months. For a while, every job printed money. Then steel prices moved, a key sub overextended, and two owners slowed pay. The GC had no cushion in the WIP because they front-loaded too hard early and burned it later. The surety pared back capacity until the backlog turned. That response was not punitive, it was protective.
Underwriters worry about concentration. If more than half your backlog sits with one owner or in one type of project, a macro wobble can ripple through your whole portfolio. A job history spread across owners and a few adjacent sectors provides insulation. It reads as optionality. It also gives you stories you can tell an underwriter when a sector slows: we have delivered in other areas and can pivot without retooling the company.
Documentation quality as a proxy for execution
You can tell within minutes whether a contractor respects documentation. Organized project binders, clean RFIs, consistent meeting minutes, contemporary daily reports, photo logs tied to schedule activities, and cost codes that match estimates make underwriting easier. They also reduce claims. When disputes arise, the winning side usually has better paper.
If your job history includes tight documentation, your surety trusts your input on in-process jobs. When you say a job is 68 percent complete, they believe you because your team measures units in place, not vibes. That trust can shave weeks off large bond approvals. When the underwriter doubts your systems, they stick to conservative assumptions, which lowers the bond line or raises the premium.
Lessons learned and institutional memory
Contractors who formalize post-job reviews build an advantage. The content does not have to be fancy. Gather the PM, superintendent, estimator, and, if possible, the owner’s rep, and walk through what went right and wrong. Capture unit productivity, sub performance, design review effectiveness, change order cycle times, and buyout deltas. Feed the findings back into estimating assumptions and preconstruction checklists.
I saw a contractor cut average drywall labor by 8 percent over four years by tracking crew composition, lift availability, and sequencing around MEP rough-in. That data lived in their job history. When they asked for a step-up bond, the underwriter approved it more readily because the contractor showed learned efficiency rather than wishful thinking. Learning shows up as tighter bids that still make money, and as fewer late surprises. Underwriters reward that.
How to present your job history to your surety
The same work can look risky or prudent depending on how you frame it. Most contractors leave value on the table because they send only the minimum package. When the ask is large or strategic, build a thoughtful history packet. Keep it honest and specific.
- A one-page narrative of the last two to three years: what changed in the market, how your project mix shifted, what you learned, and what you are doing differently as a result. A curated list of ten to fifteen projects that match the requested bond by size and type, each with scope, contract form, original and final contract values, original and final gross margins, major subs, schedule performance, and notable risks managed. A WIP with notes on the three largest jobs, explaining any fade or gains and the status of major change orders. Resumes of the project team proposed for the bonded job, with personal project histories aligned to the work. References with contact details and permission to call: owners, architects, lenders, and key subs.
Limit the pitch language and lead with facts. If you have a blemish, own it. Underwriters know the difference between a reason and an excuse. Reasons teach. Excuses repeat.
Edge cases that complicate the read
Not every job history tells a clean story, and underwriters respect nuance.
Joint ventures. If your experience comes through JVs, underwriters ask how risk and control were shared. If you were a minority partner with limited authority, the surety will discount that job when assessing your capacity to run a similar project solo. Conversely, if you led field operations and commercial management, a JV resume can be as strong as prime experience.
Design-build versus plan-and-spec. A contractor with heavy plan-and-spec success may stumble on design-build coordination even at the same dollar value. Missing that nuance can lead to overextension. If you intend to shift delivery models, preview the team’s design management history.
Service and small projects groups. Some firms mix service work with larger construction in one P&L. The service group can smooth revenue and feed relationships, but it can also inflate project count in a way that masks concentration in larger jobs. Underwriters will separate these streams mentally to assess risk.
Turnaround stories. A new CFO and a stronger controller can transform job reporting. Margins stabilize as cost codes are disciplined. These changes are real, but they do not erase old outcomes. Expect a one to two year period where the surety believes your process improvements but still wants to see the results in the WIP. Bridge that gap with transparency and periodic updates.
Pricing: how job history affects bond premium
For performance bonds, premium rates typically range from about 0.5 to 3 percent of the contract amount, with sliding scales for larger jobs. The exact rate depends on size, duration, contract type, and credit profile. Job history nudges the rate within that band. A contractor with narrow, consistent success in one niche and low claim activity often earns the lower end. One with volatile margins, frequent disputes, and aggressive step-ups trends higher. Rate is not the only lever. A strong job history can unlock flexible collateral terms, faster approvals, and higher single and aggregate limits. Those benefits may dwarf a few basis points of premium in value.
Practical habits that strengthen your file
Underwriting appreciates steady behavior. A few habits build a job history that travels well across cycles.
- Pace step-ups with cash. When you take a larger job, pause on other risky pursuits until you see stable mid-project margins and cash positions. Make the estimator and superintendent shake hands. Scope clarity and buyout discipline improve when the field and precon own the plan together, not in sequence. Chase projects that rhyme. Winning in a focused slice of the market gives you leverage with subs and predictability with owners. Expand adjacently, not randomly. Publish a one-page monthly job health report internally. Traffic lights on cost, schedule, change orders, safety, and cash drive attention to the right spots. Close jobs cleanly. Final pay apps, lien waivers, punchlists, and warranty logs wrap risk. A file that ends tidy writes a better story than one with loose ends.
What underwriters wish contractors would remember
If you sit on the contractor’s side of the table, underwriting can feel opaque. The logic sharpens when you see their incentives. Sureties collect relatively thin premiums for large obligations and need a portfolio that behaves. They want to approve your bond, and they will, if the request fits the pattern your job history supports or if you have credible ways to extend that pattern. The file that wins contains two ideas: we have done this before, and where we are stretching, here is the scaffolding.
I once watched a seasoned underwriter slide a file back across the table after a lengthy back and forth over a step-up ask. He tapped the WIP, then the resumes. “This is fine,” he said. “Not because I’m brave, but because you are boring.” Boring in underwriting is not an insult. It means your jobs start, proceed, and finish in the way your history predicts. In a business where surprises cost real money, boring is bankable.
Performance bonds are not the enemy of growth. They are a speed governor. When your job history shows that your controls grow with your ambition, the governor loosens. When your job history shows ambition outrunning the controls, it tightens. Put your energy into the work itself and into capturing that work honestly on paper. The next time you ask for more, your own record will argue for you.