SRM Portal

Enter credentials to continue

Invalid username or password

Summit Valley Power Supplier Relationship Management  •  Meridian Power Systems
Q1 2026 QBR • Mar 31, 2026
Quarterly Business Review • Q1 2026
Meridian Power Systems — Executive Summary
SRM Program • Measurement Q1 2025–Q1 2026 (5 quarters) • March 31, 2026 • Confidential
Contract term: 5/1/25 through 5/1/30
Q1 2026 Snapshot — Composite, Spend & Individual KPI Scores
Composite Score
Top
4.00/5
●Q1 2026
YTD Spend
$20.3M
Through Mar 2026
Proj. YE $27.2M · vs. annual budget plan
Q1 Spend
$7.1M
Jan–Mar 2026
(exp. $6.9M) ▲
1. On-time delivery
4.0/5
2. Production capacity
4.0/5
3. Quality performance
4.0/5
4. Customer service (qualitative)
4.0/5
5. Financial / value-add
4.0/5
6. Environmental
4.0/5
7. Order management
4.0/5

Meridian is meeting expectations across all measured areas in Q1 2026; SRM scorecard data covers five quarterly periods since program start (Q1 2025).

  • KPIs: Seven scorecard metrics — weighted aggregate 4.00 / 5.00 (acceptable threshold > 2.80; composite Top per contract bands).
  • Spend: YTD $20.3M through Mar 2026; Q1 $7.1M (vs. exp. $6.9M); projected year-end $27.2M vs. original budget $27.6M.
  • Compliance: All invoices paid within Net 30; no contractual remedies triggered; one warranty claim in remediation.
  • Continuous improvement programs remain active and on track through Q2 2026.

Distribution Transformer Status

■Approving supplier drawings for 1ph & 3ph to support 2025 orders as demand shifts to pad mounts

■Awarded transformer for solar project

Current & Potential Risks

■Rate case outcome

■Low usage pad mounts / demand visibility

Strategic Planning 2027+

■Utility planning to increase underground miles 2025–2028, driving increased 1ph & 3ph usage

Exhibit 1 — SRM Performance by Topic
Topic
Takeaway(s)
Topic
Takeaway(s)
1.On-time delivery
4.0/5
●Exceeds

■Aggregate overdue rate Q1 2026 est. 3.2%; methodology per contract (PO terms, 5-day grace, quarterly measurement).

■Supports on-time delivery performance above the 90% contractual floor.

■Exceeds per key: K.1 rubric score ≥ 4.0.

2.Production capacity
4.0/5
●Exceeds

■Accuracy of quantity, part number, and delivery location — 4.0 Q1 2026 est.

■Exceeds per key: K.1 rubric score ≥ 4.0.

3.Quality performance
4.0/5
●Exceeds

■K.2 basis: total failure 3% in Q1 2026 (weighted inspection + testing + shipping damage) — maps to K.2 score 4 (1%–5% band).

■Exceeds per key: K.1 rubric score ≥ 4.0. Composite 4.00 / 5.00 — Top tier (all seven metrics ≥ 4.0).

■Aligns with NCR program: 3 NCRs YTD (severity score 62); one open under active remediation.

4.Customer service (qualitative)
4.0/5
●Exceeds

■Courtesy, cooperation, communications, and reliability — 4.0 Q1 2026 est.; baselines to be finalized with Meridian.

■Exceeds per key: K.1 rubric score ≥ 4.0.

5.Financial / value-add
4.0/5
●Exceeds

■Value added to the utility — 4.0 Q1 2026 est.; detailed baselines to be finalized with Meridian.

■Exceeds per key: K.1 rubric score ≥ 4.0.

6.Environmental
4.0/5
●Exceeds

■Environmental sensitivity and job-site issues — 4.0 Q1 2026 est.

■Exceeds per key: K.1 rubric score ≥ 4.0.

7.Order management
4.0/5
●Exceeds

■Project paperwork and documentation — 4.0 Q1 2026 est.

■Exceeds per key: K.1 rubric score ≥ 4.0.

Contractual Compliance
●Meets

■Meets per key: payment, invoice accuracy, and guarantee tests satisfied (distinct from K.1 rubric).

■All invoices within Net 30 across five quarters; invoice accuracy 96% YTD.

■Guarantees met: OTD 95% (floor 90%), quality score 3.64 (floor 3.5), YTD NCR score 62 (cap 75) — no remedies triggered.

■One warranty claim (UG TRF Jan 2026) — Meridian coordinating replacement.

Improvement
●In Progress

■In Progress per key: initiatives actively tracked vs. prior commitments.

■Document recent improvements shared or implemented with the utility (if applicable).

Source: SRM program data, March 2026
Exhibit 1 Rating Key
●Exceeds Meeting / exceeding expectations
●Meets Meeting expectations with some areas of improvement
●At Risk Watch / trajectory concern (e.g. budget vs. annual plan)
●Fails Expectations not being met — requires immediate attention
●In Progress Area being actively monitored or improved

Same 1–5 bands as K.1: Exceeds = ≥ 4.0; Meets = lower band. K.1 weighted composite must be > 2.80 / 5. Contract composite bands are summarized below.

Composite Performance Score Key
Acceptable
Avg. >2.80 & <4.00; no 1.0 on any metric.
Unacceptable
Avg. <2.80; any 1.0; or 2.0 on the same metric in two evaluations in a row; triggers improvement plan and may affect Contract (Exhibit C).
Top
Avg. ≥4.0 and every metric ≥4.0.
Quality • Q1 2026 QBR
NCR Tracking & Quality Score
Score = Severity × Occurrence × Detection, normalized to 0–5 scale (5 = no NCRs)
Exhibit 2A — Quality Score by Quarter (0–5 Scale)
Q1 2025
4.48
Q2 2025
4.55
Q3 2025
5.00
Q4 2025
4.72
Q1 2026
3.64
YTD NCR Count
3
YTD NCR Score
62
Severity-weighted

Overall, Meridian's quality performance has met expectations and is in the top quartile of quality performance for transformer vendors. NCR response has been exemplary — complete documentation provided, best response rate, and most thorough remediation steps among peer suppliers.

Exhibit 2A cont. — Quality Score Trend
Quality Score Target 5.0
Exhibit 2B — YTD NCR Severity Breakdown
Each bar = NCR score (Severity × Occurrence × Detection)
UG TRF — Defective at Installation 36
Jan 2026 • Open Remediation S×O×D = 4×3×3
OH TRF — Incomplete Packing List 18
Jun 2025 • Closed 8/12/25 S×O×D = 3×2×3
Internal Components Pull-Out 8
Aug 2025 • Open Remediation S×O×D = 2×2×2
Max possible = 125 (S5 × O5 × D5) YTD Total: 62
Exhibit 2C — NCR Metrics by Quarter (Q1 2025–Q1 2026)
NCR Cumulative Score (left) NCR Count (right)
Exhibit 2D — NCR Log (All Active & Historical)
PeriodDescriptionOpenedScoreStatus
* Quality Score = avg NCR score for quarter, normalized 0–5. Sub-scores: Severity × Occurrence × Detection. • YTD NCR cumulative score: 62
Delivery • Q1 2026 QBR
Delivery Performance
Monthly unit delivery actuals • rolling 12 months (Apr 2025–Mar 2026)
On-Time Delivery
95%
Est. · >95% Exceeds · 90–95% Meets
Q1 2025
907
of 1,000
Q2 2025
681
of 800
Q3 2025
670
of 700
Q4 2025
720
of 750
Q1 2026
670
of 700
Program YTD vs. Projected
2,258
vs. 2,300
98.2% of projected

Program YTD (Q1 2025–Q1 2026) deliveries total 2,258 units against a projected 2,300 (98.2%). On-time delivery is 95% — no PO final dates have been exceeded, though some SKUs have experienced split deliveries across months. Q1 2026 is tracking with 670 of 700 projected units. Q2 2026 is on schedule with no current indicators of risk to the remaining order book.

Exhibit 3A — Quarterly Deliveries: Actual vs. Projected
By Quarter
Actual Exceeds (>90%) Meets (80–90%) Fails (<80%)
Cumulative
Actual Projected
Exhibit 3B — Monthly Delivery Actuals (Units)
Actual Projected
Note: Projected values are estimates pending formal baseline agreement with Meridian.
Exhibit 3C — Q1 2026 Deliveries by SKU
SKUQtyForecastActual
Exhibit 3D — Q2 2026 Upcoming Deliveries
SKUQtyForecastActual
KPI Scorecard • Q1 2026 QBR
Key Metrics
Seven SRM scorecard KPIs (1–5 scale per metric). Timeliness methodology per contract; other metrics — baselines to be finalized with Meridian. Values are estimates pending formal tracking.
Composite KPI Score — Weighted Average (1–5 Scale)
Composite Score
Top
4.00/5
equal weights (1/7 each)
●Q1 2026
Weight Distribution & Q1 2026 score (1–5)
Timeliness 14.3% 4.0
Customer Service 14.3% 4.0
Financial Perf. & Value-Added 14.3% 4.0
Quality performance 14.3% 4.0
Order Accuracy 14.3% 4.0
Environmental Stewardship 14.3% 4.0
Order Management 14.3% 4.0
1.On-time delivery
Measure of how well the Seller adheres to schedule and meets due dates.
4.0/5
Timeliness score (quarterly)
2.Production capacity
Measure of the accuracy of the orders received (quantity, part number, delivery location) during the evaluation period.
4.0/5
Q1 2026 est.
3.Quality performance
Measure of quality performance from defective parts received.
4.0/5
Q1 2026 est.
4.Customer service (qualitative)
Measure of customer service orientation of the seller to the utility as demonstrated through courtesy and cooperation, credibility and adequacy of communications, reliability of stated actions, and flexibility.
4.0/5
Q1 2026 est.
5.Financial / value-add
Measure of the value the Seller added to the utility.
4.0/5
Q1 2026 est.
6.Environmental
Measure of how sensitive the Seller is to the environment and job-site related environmental issues.
4.0/5
Q1 2026 est.
7.Order management
Measure of how well the Seller managed the paperwork associated with the project.
4.0/5
Q1 2026 est.
Custom / Jointly Developed KPIs

The utility may enlist supplier support in adapting KPIs used with other customers. Use the Define KPI button to add new metrics.

Table K.1 · Qualitative scorecard definitions (1–5)
K.1 criterion Measure 1 2 3 4 5
1. Timeliness Measure of how well the supplier adheres to schedule, and meets due dates. Rarely on schedule Inconsistently on schedule Usually on schedule Consistently on schedule Always on schedule
2. Order Accuracy Measure of the accuracy of the orders received (quantity, part number, delivery location) during the evaluation period. Poor order accuracy Order accuracy needs improvement Good order accuracy Very good order accuracy Exceptional order accuracy
3. Quality – Defects Measure of the number of defective parts received. Poor product quality Product quality needs improvement Good product quality Very good product quality Exceptional product quality
4. Customer Service Measure of customer service orientation of supplier to the utility as demonstrated through courtesy and cooperation, credibility and adequacy of communications, reliability of stated actions, and flexibility. Poor customer service Customer service needs improvement Good customer service Very good customer service Exceptional customer service
5. Financial Performance & Value-Added Services Measure of the value the supplier added to the utility. No value added Value added needs improvement Good value added Very good value added Exceptional value added
6. Environmental Stewardship Measure of how sensitive the contractor is to the environment and job-site related environmental issues. Poor environmental stewardship Environmental stewardship needs improvement Good environmental stewardship Very good environmental stewardship Exceptional environmental stewardship
7. Order Management Measure of how well the supplier managed the paperwork associated with the project. Poor administration Administration needs improvement Good administration Very good administration Excellent administration

NA = Not applicable  ·  ID = Insufficient Data (applies to all criteria)

K.2 (metric) → K.1 (scorecard) mapping
K2 K1
1. On-time delivery 1. Timeliness
2. Production capacity 5. Order Accuracy
3. Quality performance 4. Quality – Defects
4. Customer service (qualitative) 2. Customer Service
5. Financial / value-add 3. Financial Performance
6. Environmental 6. Environmental Stewardship
7. Order management 7. Order Management
Composite Performance Score Key
Acceptable
Avg. >2.80 & <4.00; no 1.0 on any metric.
Unacceptable
Avg. <2.80; any 1.0; or 2.0 on the same metric in two evaluations in a row; triggers improvement plan and may affect Contract (Exhibit C).
Top
Avg. ≥4.0 and every metric ≥4.0.
Supports KPI Scorecard • Q1 2026
KPI Metrics
Sample measurements tied to K.2 criteria. Line charts plot quarterly raw inputs (same numbers as the first data row in each footer table). Mapped 1–5 scores stay in the tables and on the KPI Scorecard tab.
1.On-time delivery
K.2 basis: aggregate overdue rate by PO (after grace); maps to Timeliness Score. Target ≥95% on-time quarterly.
3.2%
Q1 2026 · aggregate overdue (raw)
Maps to Timeliness 4 / 5 (2%–5% band) · on-time 96.8%
Sample by quarter — overdue % and mapped Timeliness score
Q1 2025Q2 2025Q3 2025Q4 2025Q1 2026
Agg. overdue % 5.24.54.03.53.2
Mapped score 34444
Chart scale & K.2 rubric
Background tints = K.2 overdue bands on the same % scale as the chart ≥10% (scores 1–2) 5%–10% (score 3) ≤5% (scores 4–5)
ScoreAggregate overdue rate
1Aggregate overdue rate ≥ 25%
210% ≤ aggregate overdue rate < 25%
35% ≤ aggregate overdue rate < 10%
42% < aggregate overdue rate < 5%
5Aggregate overdue rate ≤ 2%
Chart: Y-axis = aggregate overdue % by quarter. Target: ≥95% on-time delivery quarterly (after 5-day grace).
2.Production capacity
K.2 basis: fulfillment = units delivered ÷ monthly committed capacity; maps to Order Accuracy Score (K.2 bands).
88.5%
Q1 2026 · fulfillment (raw)
K.2 mapped score 4 (85% < rate ≤ 90%)
Sample by quarter — fulfillment % and mapped score
Q1 2025Q2 2025Q3 2025Q4 2025Q1 2026
Fulfillment % 86.086.887.588.088.5
Mapped score 44444
Chart scale & K.2 rubric
Background tints = K.2 fulfillment % bands (higher is better) ≤70% (scores 1–2) 70%–85% (score 3) >85% (scores 4–5)
ScoreProduction capacity fulfillment
1Fulfillment rate ≤ 50%
250% < fulfillment rate ≤ 70%
370% < fulfillment rate ≤ 85%
485% < fulfillment rate ≤ 90%
5Fulfillment rate > 90%
Chart: Y-axis = fulfillment % by quarter. K.2: (units delivered ÷ monthly committed capacity) × 100%.
3.Quality performance
K.2 basis: quality performance from total failure % (inspection + testing + shipping damage weighted); maps to Quality — Defects Score.
3.0%
Q1 2026 · failure % (raw)
K.2 mapped score 4 (1%–5% of units received)
Sample by quarter — quality performance (failure %) and mapped score
Q1 2025Q2 2025Q3 2025Q4 2025Q1 2026
Failure % (K.2) 6.86.46.15.93.0
Mapped score 33334
Chart scale & K.2 rubric
Background tints = K.2 quality performance bands — failure % (same scale as chart) ≥10% (scores 1–2) 5%–10% (score 3) ≤5% (scores 4–5)
ScoreQuality performance
1≥ 20% total failure
210% ≤ total failure < 20%
35% ≤ total failure < 10%
41% < total failure < 5%
5≤ 1% total failure
Chart: Y-axis = failure % by quarter (quality performance basis). K.2: inspection + testing + shipping damage (weighted) vs. units received.
4.Customer service (qualitative)
K.2 basis: utility 1–5 on communication and proactive resolution; max 3-day response target.
4.0
Q1 2026 · utility raw (1–5)
K.2 table score 4 (≤3 business days; proactive resolution / escalation)
Utility input vs. K.2 mapped score (1–5 table)
Q1 2025Q2 2025Q3 2025Q4 2025Q1 2026
Utility (raw) 3.63.653.753.94.0
K.2 score 44444
Mapped score = nearest integer to utility rating, aligned to the rubric row (1–5).
Chart bands & K.2 rubric
Sparkline Y-axis = utility raw rating; background bands = qualitative 1–5 zones 1–2 2–3.5 3.5–5
ScoreCustomer service (utility rating)
1No response to the utility; no resolution or escalation
2Responds after >5 business days; not proactive
3≤3 business days; resolves after alignment with the utility
4≤3 business days; proactive on resolution / escalation
51–2 business days; resolves without utility guidance
Chart: Y-axis = utility raw row; “K.2 score” row in the table is the mapped integer. Target: max 3-day response / resolution per K.2.
5.Financial / value-add
K.2 basis: utility whole-number 1–5 on financial performance and value-added services (K.2 score only in this view).
4/5
Q1 2026 · K.2 score (1–5)
K.2 rubric: Very good value added (whole-number K.2 score)
Sample — K.2 score (1–5, whole numbers)
Q1 2025Q2 2025Q3 2025Q4 2025Q1 2026
33444
Chart traces the same K.2 scores; each value is the rubric row for the quarter.
Chart bands & K.2 rubric
Sparkline = K.2 scores (1–5 integers) 1–2 2–3.5 3.5–5
ScoreFinancial & value-added (utility)
1No value added
2Value added needs improvement
3Good value added
4Very good value added
5Exceptional value added
Chart: Y-axis = K.2 score from the table above. K.2: financial performance and value-added services (1–5 integers).
6.Environmental
K.2 basis: utility whole-number 1–5 on environment and job-site issues (no fractional inputs).
4/5
Q1 2026 · utility score (raw = rubric)
K.2 rubric: Very good (whole-number input; no separate mapping)
Sample — utility score (1–5, whole numbers)
Q1 2025Q2 2025Q3 2025Q4 2025Q1 2026
33334
Chart traces the same whole numbers; each value is the K.2 rubric row.
Chart bands & K.2 rubric
Sparkline = raw utility scores (1–5 integers) 1–2 2–3.5 3.5–5
ScoreEnvironmental stewardship (utility)
1Poor environmental stewardship
2Needs improvement
3Good
4Very good
5Exceptional
Chart: Y-axis = utility score from the table above. K.2: environment & job-site issues (1–5 integers).
7.Order management
K.2 basis: utility whole-number 1–5 on paperwork and invoice accuracy (no fractional inputs).
4/5
Q1 2026 · utility score (raw = rubric)
K.2 rubric: Very good administration (whole-number input)
Sample — utility raw score (same as K.1 metric 1–5 each quarter)
Q1 2025Q2 2025Q3 2025Q4 2025Q1 2026
44444
Whole-number utility input equals the metric score (here 4 on the scorecard); see K.2 rubric row 4 — Very good administration.
Chart bands & K.2 rubric
Sparkline = raw utility scores (1–5 integers) 1–2 2–3.5 3.5–5
ScoreOrder management (utility)
1Poor administration
2Administration needs improvement
3Good administration
4Very good administration
5Excellent administration
Chart: Y-axis = utility score from the table above. K.2: paperwork & invoice accuracy (1–5 integers).
Exhibit • Scorecard
Table K.1 — Qualitative Scorecard Definitions (1–5)
Sacramento Municipal Utility District • Contract No. 46000XXXXX • Contract rubric for K.1 qualitative scores
Table K.1 · Qualitative scorecard definitions (1–5)
K.1 criterion Measure 1 2 3 4 5
1. Timeliness Measure of how well the supplier adheres to schedule, and meets due dates. Rarely on schedule Inconsistently on schedule Usually on schedule Consistently on schedule Always on schedule
2. Order Accuracy Measure of the accuracy of the orders received (quantity, part number, delivery location) during the evaluation period. Poor order accuracy Order accuracy needs improvement Good order accuracy Very good order accuracy Exceptional order accuracy
3. Quality – Defects Measure of the number of defective parts received. Poor product quality Product quality needs improvement Good product quality Very good product quality Exceptional product quality
4. Customer Service Measure of customer service orientation of supplier to the utility as demonstrated through courtesy and cooperation, credibility and adequacy of communications, reliability of stated actions, and flexibility. Poor customer service Customer service needs improvement Good customer service Very good customer service Exceptional customer service
5. Financial Performance & Value-Added Services Measure of the value the supplier added to the utility. No value added Value added needs improvement Good value added Very good value added Exceptional value added
6. Environmental Stewardship Measure of how sensitive the contractor is to the environment and job-site related environmental issues. Poor environmental stewardship Environmental stewardship needs improvement Good environmental stewardship Very good environmental stewardship Exceptional environmental stewardship
7. Order Management Measure of how well the supplier managed the paperwork associated with the project. Poor administration Administration needs improvement Good administration Very good administration Excellent administration

NA = Not applicable  ·  ID = Insufficient Data (applies to all criteria)

Exhibit • Scorecard
Table K.2 — Scorecard Metric Definitions
Sacramento Municipal Utility District • Contract No. 46000XXXXX • Reference definitions for KPI scorecard mapping
K.2 — K.1
K2 (Metric) → K1 (Scorecard) Mapping
K2 K1
1. On-time delivery 1. Timeliness
2. Production capacity 5. Order Accuracy
3. Quality performance 4. Quality – Defects
4. Customer service (qualitative) 2. Customer Service
5. Financial / value-add 3. Financial Performance
6. Environmental 6. Environmental Stewardship
7. Order management 7. Order Management
1. On-Time Delivery Performance
Timeliness (delivery adherence)
Owner description
Seller shall deliver all products in accordance with the delivery date acknowledged in the Purchase Order, with a grace period of up to 5 calendar days, unless the parties have agreed to a Change Order affecting the delivery date.
Performance target
Supplier shall maintain an on-time delivery rate of ≥ 95% on a quarterly basis. Persistent underperformance may trigger corrective action, contract review, and/or the enforcement of late delivery fees.
Measurement frequency
Once quarterly
Basis for calculation
On-time delivery performance shall be measured in two ways:
  • a. Days late per PO: the number of calendar days each PO is delivered more than 5 days after the confirmed delivery date.
  • b. Aggregate overdue rate: the percentage of total orders delivered past the confirmed delivery date, calculated by count of total POs.
Metric mapped to scorecard
Timeliness Score
1–5 mapping
ScoreAggregate overdue rate
1Aggregate overdue rate ≥ 25%
210% ≤ aggregate overdue rate < 25%
35% ≤ aggregate overdue rate < 10%
42% < aggregate overdue rate < 5%
5Aggregate overdue rate ≤ 2%
2. Production Capacity Fulfillment Rate
Capacity vs. committed volume
Owner description
The Production Capacity Fulfillment Rate measures the Supplier’s ability to meet the agreed upon monthly production volume.
Performance target
Seller shall maintain a fulfillment rate of ≥ 98% per month, with no single month falling below 95%.
Measurement frequency
Once monthly, with quarterly and annual roll-ups.
Basis for calculation
Fulfillment Rate = (Units Delivered ÷ Monthly Committed Capacity) × 100%
Metric mapped to scorecard
Order Accuracy Score
1–5 mapping
ScoreFulfillment rate
1Fulfillment rate ≤ 50%
250% < fulfillment rate ≤ 70%
370% < fulfillment rate ≤ 85%
485% < fulfillment rate ≤ 90%
5Fulfillment rate > 90%
3. Quality Performance
Defects and quality performance
Owner description
Quality performance shall be assessed based on the rate of product failures identified through visual inspection, functional testing, and other agreed-upon quality control methods.
Performance target
Seller shall maintain quality performance such that total failure is < 1.0% on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis.
Measurement frequency
Once monthly
Basis for calculation
  • a. Visual inspection failures: units failing inspection by any structural or visual discrepancy upon receipt.
  • b. Testing failures: units failing functional or performance testing.
  • c. Shipping damage failures: units damaged in transit (weighted at 25%).
  • d. Combined failure rate: combined rate of (a), (b), and (c) as a percentage of total units received.
Metric mapped to scorecard
Quality — Defects Score
1–5 mapping
ScoreQuality performance
1≥ 20% total failure
210% ≤ total failure < 20%
35% ≤ total failure < 10%
41% < total failure < 5%
5≤ 1% total failure
4. Customer Service Performance
Responsiveness and resolution
Owner description
Customer service performance is a qualitative metric based on the Seller’s timely responsiveness, communication, and problem-solving effectiveness, through the assigned sales representative.
Performance target
Supplier shall maintain a high standard of customer service, as determined by quarterly performance reviews and feedback sessions. Maximum response and resolution time of 3 days following inquiry by the utility.
Measurement frequency
Once monthly
Basis for calculation
A utility-assigned rating from 1 (poor performance) to 5 (exceptional performance) of: (a) timeliness and clarity of communication; (b) proactive issue resolution and escalation.
Metric mapped to scorecard
Customer Service Score
1–5 mapping
ScoreDefinition
1Seller does not respond to utility inquiries and does not resolve or escalate issues.
2Seller responds to utility inquiries after more than 5 business days and is not proactive about resolving or escalating issues.
3Seller responds to utility inquiries within 3 business days and resolves or escalates issues after alignment with the utility.
4Seller responds to utility inquiries within 3 business days and is proactive about resolving or escalating issues.
5Seller responds to utility inquiries in 1–2 business days and resolves or escalates issues without guidance from the utility.
5. Financial Performance & Value-Added Services
Value to utility
Owner description
Financial performance and value-added services is a metric based on the value the Seller added to the utility.
Performance target
TBD
Measurement frequency
Once quarterly
Basis for calculation
A utility-assigned rating from 1 (poor performance) to 5 (exceptional performance) of: (a) financial performance; (b) value-added services.
Metric mapped to scorecard
Financial Performance Score
1–5 mapping
ScoreDefinition
1No value added
2Value added needs improvement
3Good value added
4Very good value added
5Exceptional value added
6. Environmental Stewardship
Environment and job-site sensitivity
Owner description
Environmental stewardship measures how sensitive the contractor is to the environment and job-site related environmental issues.
Performance target
TBD
Measurement frequency
Once quarterly
Basis for calculation
A utility-assigned rating from 1 (poor performance) to 5 (exceptional performance) of environment and job-site related environmental issues.
Metric mapped to scorecard
Environmental Stewardship Score
1–5 mapping
ScoreDefinition
1Poor environmental stewardship
2Environmental stewardship needs improvement
3Good environmental stewardship
4Very good environmental stewardship
5Exceptional environmental stewardship
7. Order Management
Paperwork and invoice accuracy
Owner description
Order management is a measure of how well the Seller managed the paperwork associated with the project.
Performance target
TBD
Measurement frequency
Once quarterly
Basis for calculation
A utility-assigned rating from 1 (poor performance) to 5 (exceptional performance) of management of paperwork and invoice accuracy.
Metric mapped to scorecard
Order Management Score
1–5 mapping
ScoreDefinition
1Poor administration
2Administration needs improvement
3Good administration
4Very good administration
5Excellent administration
Action Tracker • Q1–Q2 2026
Actions & Next Steps
Owners, status, and estimated completion dates
Updates
Additions
Exhibit 4 — Action Item Register
CategoryActionOwnerStatusEst. DateComments
Quarterly Business Review • Working agenda
Meeting Agenda
Editable agenda for the selected period. Data is stored in this browser so you can reopen past QBRs.
Export & share
Details

Choose With (utility, supplier, or other organization), then full name, title, and email. Click Add on that row to save the person and open a blank row for the next. Show in meeting agenda lists name, title, and organization under “Meeting Objectives and Agenda” (no emails there). Use Email / Copy in the header to distribute.

Use the toolbar for fonts, sizes, bullets, alignment, and links. Plain text from older agendas is converted when opened.

Performance Feedback • YTD Mar 2026
Supplier Assessment
Overall Rating: Exceeded Expectations across all measured areas
Utility Assessment — Achievements
    Utility Assessment — Areas for Improvement
      Supplier Assessment of Utility (YTD) — To Be Completed by Supplier
      Achievements
      Areas of Improvement
      Contractual Compliance • Future Section
      Contract Adherence
      To be activated once pilot parameters are finalized (6–12 month timeline)
      Contract Sections — Under Development
      Section 1
      Payment Terms
      ■Net 30 payment terms per master supply agreement
      ■All invoices submitted and paid within terms across the five-quarter window — no outstanding disputes or late payments as of March 2026
      ■Invoice accuracy rate estimated at 96% YTD — two invoices required minor correction related to unit count discrepancies
      Section 2
      Warranty
      ■Standard 1-year warranty on all distribution transformers from date of installation
      ■One active warranty claim: UG TRF defective unit (NCR Jan 2026, score 36) — Meridian has accepted responsibility and is coordinating replacement
      ■All other delivered units within warranty with no additional field failures reported
      Section 3
      Performance Guarantees
      ■On-time delivery floor: 90% — Meridian tracking at 94% (Meets)
      ■Quality score floor: 3.5/5.0 per quarter — Q1 2026 score 3.64 is above floor; trending down from Q3 2025 peak of 5.00
      ■YTD NCR score cap of 75 has not been breached — current score is 62
      ■No contractual remedies triggered to date
      Section 4
      Other Contract Terms
      ■Annual volume and spend reporting per contract — see Spend tab for YTD actuals and forecast
      ■Confidentiality and IP provisions in place for all approved drawings and technical specifications
      ■Annual contract review scheduled for Q1 2027
      Improvement • Future Section
      Innovation & Process Enhancement
      Structured tracking of supplier-initiated improvements and joint innovation initiatives
      Recent / Proposed Initiatives
      Planned Actions & Milestones
      Program spend • 2026 YTD
      Spend Tracker
      Distribution transformer purchases — YTD actuals, budget comparison, and monthly spend trend
      Spend overview
      YTD Spend
      $20.3M
      Through Mar 2026
      Projected Year-End
      $27.2M
      (–$0.4M vs. budget)
      Original Budget (EOY)
      $27.6M
      12 × $2.3M/mo

      Through September, Meridian has spent $20.3M, with a year-end projection of $27.2M. YTD spend is tracking about $0.4M below the original $27.6M budget. Remaining months need to hold roughly $1.5M/month on average to stay near plan; the chart below shows monthly actuals to date and the projected run rate for the rest of the year.

      Monthly Spend — Actual & Projected
      Actual Projected
      Contract file room • Q1 2026 QBR
      Documents
      Add PDFs by drag-and-drop or Choose PDF (stored in this browser session only). Categorize as contract, appendices, change orders, redlines, or misc. Use Open if embedded PDFs are blocked.
      Add document
      Drop a PDF here
      No file selected — browse or drag a PDF
      Or link a hosted PDF (URL)

      Summit Valley — Meridian Material Contract 2026

      demo-material-contract-2026.pdf
      Open in new tab
      Live Data Input
      Update Dashboard Data
      Changes propagate immediately to charts and KPI cards across all sections
      Quality — Update Data
      Score colors auto-apply: green ≥4.5, amber 3.5–4.49, red <3.5
      Delivery — Update Data
      Supplemental KPIs — Update Values (1–5 scale)

      Seven scorecard KPIs. Enter quarterly scores (1.0–5.0). Composite uses equal weights; acceptable aggregate is > 2.80.

      Quarterly Summary
      QuarterQuality ScoreDeliveriesNCRsNCR ScoreRating
      Q1 20254.4890700Exceeded
      Q2 20254.55681226Met
      Q3 20255.0067000Exceeded
      Q4 20254.7272000Met
      Q1 20263.64510*136Partial
      * Q1 2026 deliveries as of March 31, 2026 — five quarterly periods measured since Q1 2025