Procore | Construction Metrics

Procore says its Magpie 3.0 engine completed 78% of 200-plus construction tasks, 18 points above the closest general AI model

Sat, 24 Oct 2026 07:36:21 -0400

Procore shared a preview of its own construction AI benchmark at Groundbreak 2026, its annual customer conference, and posted the results on its blog on October 22, 2026. A benchmark is a fixed set of tasks scored the same way for every system, and this one has more than 200 tasks drawn from RFI, submittal, drawing, schedule and change work. Procore says Magpie 3.0, the new reasoning engine behind Procore AI, completed 78% of them. That is 18 percentage points above the closest general-purpose frontier model, meaning the large commercial models from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google. On October 21, at the same conference, Procore put Procore AI Go, a voice app for field crews, into open beta.

What it does

Start with the project engineer reviewing an emergency generator submittal. That person reads the package against the mechanical spec section and the drawings, then writes a response. A requirement sitting in another division, such as an electrical section that names the transfer switch manufacturer, gets caught only if the reviewer thinks to look there.

Procore describes three layers in Procore AI that do that cross-referencing:

A multimodal index, meaning one that reads images as well as text, opens drawings, site photos and meeting minutes. On a drawing it picks out gridlines, fixture symbols, dimension strings and revision clouds.
A construction ontology, a map of how project records relate to each other, links RFIs, submittals, observations, daily logs, meetings, drawings, photos and change events to the same trade, assembly and location.
Magpie 3.0 works through a question in steps across those linked records. It chooses a tool for each step, such as an image analyzer or a document parser, and cites the governing drawing detail or spec section in its answer.

For submittals, two Procore tools described in a September 18 product post sit on top of this. Submittal Builder reads the spec book and drafts the submittal log, including closeout, warranty and O&M items. The Submittal Reviewer agent checks returned packages against the specs and the contract, flags deviations and unapproved substitutions, and drafts a response. The project engineer or PM reviews the draft and makes the call.

Procore AI Go takes the question-and-answer part to the field. A foreman presses to talk, asks about drawings, specs, RFIs, submittals, daily logs, observations or inspections, and hears a spoken answer drawn from the project’s Procore data. Procore says later releases will let crews create daily logs and observations and draft RFIs by voice, and will add its Daily Log Agent and Site Safety Agent to the app.

What Procore announced around Groundbreak 2026 and where each piece stands
Capability	What it does	Status in October 2026
Multimodal index	Reads drawings, site photos and meeting minutes as content, such as gridlines, symbols and revision clouds	Generally available in all Procore AI packages
Magpie 3.0	Reasons across linked project records and cites the governing drawing, spec section or record	Open beta for Procore AI customers through Procore Explore
Construction ontology	Links RFIs, submittals, observations, daily logs, meetings, drawings, photos and change events	Built in; drawing-photo linking and rework pattern detection roll out over the coming year
Procore AI Go	Voice questions and spoken answers on drawings, specs, RFIs, submittals, daily logs, observations and inspections	Open beta in North America on Digital Coworker Starter, Pro and Enterprise
AI Go on Meta AI glasses	Hands-free questions and first-person photos	Closed beta
Daily log and observation creation in AI Go	Create daily logs and observations and draft RFIs by voice and images	Announced as coming

Source: procore.com

Evidence so far

The evidence is Procore’s benchmark preview, one customer example in the same post, a customer comment in the AI Go release, and one customer figure from a July release. Procore built the tasks and ran the test. Procore says Thomas Kommer of the California Center for Construction Education at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo reviewed the task scenarios, scoring rubrics and correct answers.

These claims come from Procore:

Superintendents, project managers and project executives contributed the questions behind the tasks. The tasks fall into five workflow families and four difficulty tiers, from Easy to Expert.
A task passed only if the answer was correct and supported by the project record. Speed and cost were measured separately.
The general models got the same project data and tasks through Procore’s public API, the route a customer would use to connect them today.
Magpie 3.0 passed 78% of tasks. The closest frontier model scored 18 points lower, which works out to about 60%.

Task success rate on Procore's construction benchmark, early preview, October 2026
System	Task success rate (%)	Basis
Procore AI with Magpie 3.0	78%	Reported by Procore
Closest general-purpose frontier model	60%	Computed here as 78 minus the 18-point margin Procore reports

Source: procore.com

The five workflow families in Procore's benchmark
Workflow family	Example tasks Procore lists
RFI management	Investigating root causes, identifying linked drawing callouts, catching duplicates, evaluating schedule impacts
Submittal management	Cross-checking submittals against spec divisions, identifying non-approved substitutions, flagging lead-time risks
Drawings and specifications	Resolving revision-sensitive details, tracing section cuts across sheets, detecting constructability clashes
Schedule and delay	Evaluating float, identifying critical-path impacts from field observations, analyzing trade sequencing
Cost and change	Identifying unapproved scope changes, calculating budget exposure across cost codes, validating potential change orders

Source: procore.com

Procore calls these results an early preview and says it will publish the full set. Scores by model, by difficulty tier and by workflow family are not yet public, and neither are the speed and cost measurements. The post names the three model families tested and gives one score for the closest of them.

The field example comes from Bernards, a California builder. Procore says project manager Joseph Kim ran a generator submittal through Procore AI, which found that the package met the mechanical spec but missed an electrical spec requirement that the automatic transfer switch come from the generator’s manufacturer. Kim’s comment: “It caught something from a different spec.”

Procore’s July 23 release says Haskell cut submittal reviews from seven days to 10 minutes with Procore AI. The number of submittals and the scope of the reviews behind the figure are not yet public.

Submittal review time at Haskell, as Procore reports it
Customer	Task	Before Procore AI	With Procore AI	Reported by
Haskell	Submittal review	7 days	10 minutes	Procore press release, July 23, 2026

Source: procore.com

For AI Go, the evidence is a comment from Andrew Baker, CIO of Sequoyah Electric, who says his foremen ask questions while looking at the problem and get an answer on the spot. Procore says it is part of a study with Moss Construction, designed by SBK Technologies, of how agents, AI Go and AI wearables affect administrative time. The study’s results are not yet out.

How to measure it on your projects

Track submittal review cycle time: calendar days from the date your team receives a submittal package to the date the response goes back to the subcontractor. Next to it, count spec conflicts caught at review, so a shorter cycle cannot hide missed requirements.

Capture the baseline before you turn on the agent:

Pull the last 30 to 50 closed submittals on a comparable job and record the received and returned dates for each.
Count the revise-and-resubmit responses, and mark the ones whose reason came from a spec section outside the package’s own division.
Count change events or field issues from the last six months that trace back to an approved submittal with a missed requirement.

During the pilot, have the reviewer log each agent flag as a real problem, a false flag or something already caught. The share of flags that were real problems is the tool’s precision. A first step on one job is to run the agent on 10 submittals your team has already approved and compare its flags with what your reviewer found.

Earlier posts covered Autodesk’s Submittals Evaluation Agent, Buildertrend’s AI Submittals and how to measure RFI turnaround before an AI pilot.

Availability and cost

Procore says the multimodal index is generally available across all Procore AI packages, and Magpie 3.0 is in open beta for Procore AI customers through Procore Explore. Ontology features shown at Groundbreak, including linking drawings and photos and automated rework pattern detection, roll out over the coming year.

AI Go is in open beta for North American customers on the Digital Coworker Starter, Pro and Enterprise packages. The Meta AI glasses version is in closed beta. Each Digital Coworker package includes Control Tower, which shows AI usage and credit consumption by agent, project and team member. Package prices are not listed in the releases.

How to measure RFI turnaround before an AI pilot, with a 10-RFI example

Tue, 20 Oct 2026 07:38:59 -0400

A project engineer gets a question from the drywall foreman about a soffit detail that doesn’t match the reflected ceiling plan. The engineer checks the drawings and the specs, writes the RFI, attaches a marked-up sheet and sends it to the architect. Days later the answer comes back and goes out to the field. AI tools for RFIs work on both halves of that sequence, so a contractor who wants to test one needs a record of how long each half takes today.

This post sets up that record. It uses the definitions and benchmarks in a 2013 research paper from the Navigant Construction Forum, which the Construction Management Association of America hosts, and the settings in Procore’s RFI tool.

The definitions

Navigant defines an RFI as a written request from the contractor asking the owner to interpret or clarify a requirement of the contract documents. Its sample contract clause asks the contractor to state the issue, why and when a response is needed, and the contractor’s own reading of the requirement.

The same clause starts the response clock on the date the owner stamps the RFI received from the contractor and stops it on the date the response is stamped out to the contractor. The sample allows 10 working days. A footnote warns owners to say “working days” when they mean it, because most contracts count calendar days.

Procore’s RFI tool asks an administrator to set how many calendar days after creation an RFI is due, and it sends overdue email notices to assignees. Procore also tracks which party has the ball in court on each open RFI.

What the published benchmarks show

Navigant’s figures come from Aconex, which mined its records for 1,362 projects begun between 2001 and 2012. Each project had at least 100 RFIs, and together they logged 1,083,807 RFIs, an average of 796 per project. About 79% of the projects were in Australia and New Zealand, and 29 were in the Americas, so the averages describe that mix.

Across the sample, the average first reply took 6.4 days and the median reply took 9.7 days. A median is the middle value once the RFIs are sorted by time, so one RFI that waits two months for a structural engineer moves it far less than it moves the average. Projects of one year or less had a median reply of 7 days. Projects of two years or more ran close to 10.

On cost, Navigant’s estimate came from interviews with three US design and construction management firms. They put the typical RFI at about 8 hours to receive, log, review and answer, and Navigant priced that at an average of $1,080 per RFI.

The paper’s case study shows why the RFI log needs categories. A claim on a wastewater treatment plant laboratory cited about 4,000 RFIs. About 800 turned out to be repeats of questions already answered, and about 300 were answered the day they arrived by pointing to a specification section, drawing or detail.

Where an AI tool would show up

Procore’s Draft RFI with AI feature, in beta, shows the two places a tool can act. The user types the question and any cost or schedule impact, and the feature suggests a subject, a question, a cost impact and a schedule impact. A second step searches the project documents for information that could answer the question, which Procore says helps the user see whether the question has already been answered.

Suggested wording saves the project engineer drafting time. The document search can stop some RFIs from reaching the architect. The design team’s answer time sits outside both steps, so a pilot of a drafting tool should be measured on the contractor’s side of the clock. Tools that review drawings before the RFI stage, such as Buildcheck and UpCodes, would show up in the count of RFIs per million dollars of work.

How to measure it on your projects

Track three intervals for every RFI, in calendar days unless your contract counts working days:

Days to draft: from the date the question reached the project engineer to the date the RFI was submitted.
Days to answer: from submission to the date the response came back, the interval Navigant’s clause measures.
Total days: from the question to the answer reaching the field.

Add a category to each RFI. Navigant’s list for an RFI coordinator includes “answered by reference to specification or drawing” and “previously asked and responded to.” Those two categories count the questions a document search might have answered before submission.

A worked example

The figures below are an example with round numbers. A general contractor exports 10 closed RFIs from one job, adds the date each question first came in from the field, and assigns a category. The contract allows 10 calendar days for a response.

Example RFI log, 10 closed RFIs from one job (illustrative figures)
RFI	Category	Days to draft	Days to answer	Total days
001	Design clarification	2	6	8
002	Answered by reference to documents	1	1	2
003	Incomplete plans or specs	3	12	15
004	Design coordination	2	9	11
005	Answered by reference to documents	2	2	4
006	Differing site condition	1	14	15
007	Design clarification	4	7	11
008	Previously asked and answered	1	1	2
009	Constructability	2	10	12
010	Design clarification	3	8	11

Example baseline computed from the log above (illustrative figures)
Measure	Example baseline
Median days to draft	2.0
Median days to answer	7.5
Mean days to answer	7.0
Median total days	11.0
RFIs answered past the 10-day contract time (%)	20
RFIs answered from existing documents (%)	30

Days to answer has a median of 7.5 and a mean of 7.0. Two RFIs, the incomplete-spec question at 12 days and the site condition at 14, ran past the 10-day contract time. Three of the 10, or 30%, were answered from the existing documents, and those three account for 4 of the 21 drafting days and 4 of the 70 answer days.

If a drafting tool cut the median days to draft from 2 to 1, the typical RFI would reach the architect about a day sooner. If its document search caught the three RFIs answered from the documents before they went out, the architect would receive 7 RFIs. Navigant’s estimate of $1,080 per RFI is a 2013 figure from three firms, so price your own review hours before carrying it into a pilot budget.

Answer days depend on the design team, so a change in the architect’s staffing can move them during a pilot. RFI volume follows the job too: Navigant reports that projects of five years or more averaged slightly more than 1,400 RFIs, against 270 for projects of a year or less. Compare months at a similar stage of the work, or use a second job of similar size as a control.

RFIs that are late on activities with little float carry the schedule risk. The total float log shows which activities those are, and Navigant’s best practices ask contractors to submit RFIs at least 10 days before the response is needed.

Start with one active job. Export the closed RFIs from the last three months, add the date each question first came in from the field, assign a category, and compute the median of each interval before anyone turns on the new tool.

Procore opens Compass Q Score prequalification to every general contractor and subcontractor on its platform

Fri, 16 Oct 2026 07:38:30 -0400

Procore has named Compass, the subcontractor prequalification platform from Toronto-based Bespoke Metrics, its preferred prequalification tool, Bespoke Metrics announced on October 15, 2026. The program, called Prequal for All, makes Compass prequalification available to every general contractor and subcontractor working in Procore, starting that day. It touches the prequalification packet a risk manager reviews before a trade partner can bid, and the bid list a preconstruction team builds in Procore’s Bidding tool.

What it does

Today a subcontractor fills out a separate prequalification form for each general contractor it works with, and someone in the GC’s risk or preconstruction group reads the financial statements, EMR letter and insurance certificates in each one. Compass replaces those forms with one standardized questionnaire, the 1Form. The subcontractor completes it once, keeps it current and chooses which general contractors can see it. Bespoke Metrics says more than 150,000 subcontractors already have a profile.

Compass checks each submission in two passes. Its product page says machine learning flags possible problems in the data first, and then a person checks the supporting documents. Data that could not be verified carries a warning.

From the verified data, Compass produces the Q Score, a rating from Q1 (lowest risk) to Q7 (highest risk), along with a recommended prequalification outcome. Its published methodology weights three sections:

How the Compass Q Score is weighted, per Bespoke Metrics' methodology
Section	Weight in Q Score	Examples of what Compass measures
Business	50%	Employee turnover, revenue diversification, backlog relative to revenue, legal history, years in business
Finance	40%	Liquidity (current ratio, cash ratio), leverage (debt to equity, interest coverage), turnover, profitability
Health and safety	10%	Incident rate, experience modification rate, recordable incident rate, safety policy, dedicated safety lead

Source: compass.bespokemetrics.com

Each ratio is graded strong, average or weak against a fixed threshold, and the same thresholds apply to every subcontractor regardless of trade, region or size. Severe findings, such as an active insolvency or financial statements older than 24 months, cap the score however strong the ratios are. Missing, expired or unverified data counts as weak, and Compass treats financials as expired six months after fiscal year end. The health and safety inputs include the experience modification rate and the recordable incident rate.

The Compass Q Scale
Q Score	Color	Risk level	What Compass's methodology says it calls for
Q1	Green	Very low	Minimal review
Q2 to Q3	Green	Low	Minor issues with above-average overall performance
Q4 to Q5	Yellow	Moderate	Further evaluation or risk mitigation may be required
Q6 to Q7	Red	High	Additional due diligence or information before selection

Source: compass.bespokemetrics.com

The work splits between two groups. The GC’s risk team sets the standards and reviews exceptions inside Compass. Project teams see the Q Score and the prequalification result in Procore, where they invite bidders and level bids. The subcontractor’s financial statements stay in Compass, and only the score and the outcome reach Procore.

The connection runs over the Model Context Protocol (MCP), an open standard that lets AI software pull data from outside systems. Bespoke Metrics says a Compass Risk Agent, which will show project teams where every subcontractor stands from bid to award, is expected later this year.

Evidence so far

The evidence is Bespoke Metrics’ announcement, a statement from Procore inside it, ENR’s report and Compass’s own published methodology. These claims come from Bespoke Metrics:

Compass connects more than 400 general contractors and more than 150,000 subcontractors in 33 countries, representing more than $1 trillion in annual construction volume.
The 1Form meets the data collection standards of more than 70 general contractors across North America.
The 1Form satisfies more than 92% of surety applications.

ENR reports that Compass has been available on Procore for more than two years. What changes now is its reach to every Procore customer and its status as the default provider. Procore’s Geoff Lewis, senior vice president of product, said the partnership will “replace passive, static forms with active, modern risk intelligence.”

The methodology says Compass backtests the Q Score by comparing past scores with what happened later. Default or failure rates by Q Score band, the figure that would show how well the scale separates strong subcontractors from weak ones, are not yet public.

How to measure it on your projects

The metric to track is prequalification cycle time: calendar days from the day you send a subcontractor the prequal request to the day your risk team records an approve, approve-with-conditions or decline decision. When a review runs past the bid date, a subcontractor can end up on the bid list before anyone has read its financials.

Capture the baseline before you switch:

Pull the last 20 to 30 prequalification files your risk team closed and record the request date and decision date for each.
Count how many of those needed a second request for missing documents, such as an expired insurance certificate or last year’s financials.
On two or three recent bid packages, count the bidders who were invited before their prequalification was complete.

During a pilot, record the same three numbers, split between subcontractors who already have a Compass profile and those who have to create one. Log every case where your reviewer’s decision differs from Compass’s recommended outcome, with the reason. That log shows how closely the Q Score matches your own risk tolerance. The marketplace listing says a risk manager can also build a custom risk model with Compass to fit the company’s thresholds.

A first step on one job is to export the bidder list from your next bid package and check how many of those companies already have a Q Score in the Procore Construction Network.

Availability and cost

The announcement says Prequal for All is available to Procore customers now. Procore’s support guide for the existing Bidding integration lists it for the Enhanced Bid Management experience in the United States and Canada, with an active Procore Bid Management subscription required. The fastest match uses each company’s EIN, and Compass syncs to Procore twice a day, so new data can take up to 12 hours to appear. The guide says companies without a Compass account can still see the Q Score for companies listed in the Procore Construction Network.

The Procore Marketplace listing says the integration requires a Compass subscription, that a free trial is available, and that Bespoke Metrics prices by quote. Pricing specific to Prequal for All could not be verified.

How one contractor uses NYC Department of Buildings(DOB) permit requirements to drive inspections in the field with Procore

Tue, 01 Nov 2022 15:28:43 +0000

On your job site, especially if you’re in New York City, you’ll need to ensure your team complies with all of the requirements listed in each trade’s work permit. But, getting the status of any given permit on a job is a cumbersome process, and keeping track of what’s left to address is even more challenging. It takes a highly diligent superintendent or project manager to stay on top of the requirements at any point in the job and communicate them to the field.

Below is how an NYC contractor used data integration to save several hours per week of coordination and data-entry.

Challenge

The contractor was looking to reduce the amount of data entry required each week to pull updated permit status and required inspection items, and then relay that data to the field. Before this solution came online, their process was:

Check the NYC DOB NOW website for permit status and required items.
Create a new inspection template for each project in Procore and add the required items for each permit as sections.
Communicate with the field to complete the inspection.
And, if any of the required items changed…repeat the process.

Solution

The contractor worked with data engineering firm, ResponseVault, to create both the integrations between the NYC DOB NOW website, and Procore Inspections, but also to create a management screen for every project.

The integration loads the database of permit information from the DOB into a data warehouse, then lets the contractor’s team choose which permits they want to track per project. When it’s ready, it will trigger an inspection to be created for the project in Procore, including each permit and a line item for each open requirement for the field to respond to.

How does this work?

First, the integration team uses the NYC Open Data Portal to periodically extract and load permit data from the DOB into a PostgreSQL data warehouse. This process happens each day, as the dataset is updated daily. The data has two columns (fields) that contain the information we’re looking for in each permit. They are Special Inspection Requirement and Progress Inspection Requirements. The data in those columns is a comma-separated list of requirements for the permit to move forward. A typical value may look like “Fire-Resistant Penetrations and Joints, High-Pressure Fuel-Gas Piping (Welding).”

ResponseVault takes the data in its raw form, transforms each requirement into a separate record, and presents the contractor’s team with a management interface that includes the project information, a list of each of the permits relevant to that project, and a list of all requirements for each permit.

As the job is in progress, the contractor’s staff in the office can trigger a workflow that creates a customized Procore inspection with sections for each permit and the requirements as entries. The inspection is unique to the project and generated through an automated process that leverages the information in the data warehouse.

The inspection with up-to-date permit data from the data warehouse and attachments uploaded by office staff is now ready to be completed by the field. With this integration, the contractor can reduce data entry and communication time with the field by 60% weekly.

If you’re looking to integrate permit information or other project data with your project management system, contact the ResponseVault team.