Roofing crew payment approval checklist: request to settlement

A crew payment request can match the agreed rate and still be missing completion evidence. An approved request can also be exported twice or remain unpaid. One status called “approved” cannot explain all three situations.

Use this roofing crew payment approval checklist to assemble the request, explain the approved amount, and follow the accounting handoff. The checklist describes operational records; payment terms and the people authorized to make decisions come from your company’s applicable agreements and policies.

Start with one identifiable request

Give each request its own identifier and link it to the job, crew or vendor, work period, and applicable scope version. Retain the original submission alongside later corrections. A revised attachment should not silently replace the evidence used for an earlier approval.

Before calculating an amount, collect:

• The job and work-order references, including the location or phase when needed to distinguish similar work.
• The crew or vendor identity used in the job system and the corresponding accounting record.
• The agreed pricing basis: units, rate, fixed scope, or another documented arrangement.
• The quantities or milestones requested, with completion evidence appropriate to that arrangement.
• Approved scope changes and separately identified requests awaiting a decision.
• Prior approved amounts, verified payments, and unresolved transfers linked to this scope.
• The request’s reviewer, next action, and review date.

Check the meaning of the unit before multiplying. A quantity entered as roofing squares should not be treated as an area in square feet. If the source does not establish a quantity, keep it unresolved rather than substituting zero or assuming the entire scope is complete.

Review work and scope before the amount

Match the requested work to the current approved scope and supporting records. Identify who can confirm completion and where that confirmation is saved. A job marked “complete” may cover a different scope or phase from the payment request.

Separate a quantity difference, rate difference, missing document, and requested scope change. Each needs its own explanation and decision. Flagging a difference does not establish an overpayment, justify a deduction, or resolve a disagreement.

Hibe’s crew payment workflow describes matching requests against work orders, materials, and job status. It includes approval automation for clean requests and routing exceptions for review. Confirm the configured conditions and exception owner in your setup. Record whether a decision came from an authorized reviewer or a configured policy, with the relevant policy version.

Keep approval and payment states separate

Use separate evidence for these events, even if your tools use different names:

1. Request reviewed: the reviewer checked the listed records and recorded any open questions.
2. Amount approved: a defined amount and scope have an identifiable approval decision. Preserve exclusions and conditions.
3. Release authorized: the person or workflow with payment authority approved the specific payment instruction.
4. Payment scheduled or submitted: the payroll or accounts-payable system accepted an instruction. Preserve its reference and observed status.
5. Settlement verified: the relevant payment evidence has been reconciled to the request and accounting record.

A review is not necessarily an amount approval. An amount approval is not a bank settlement. A scheduled instruction can also fail, be canceled, or remain pending; retain those outcomes instead of changing the original approval.

Intuit’s bill approval and payment release documentation distinguishes these controls and describes plan and role requirements. Its bill-approver role cannot pay bills. Verify the controls available in your actual subscription, and recheck them when plans or roles change. Do not assume every QuickBooks account has the same approval workflow.

Work through a partial request

This hypothetical USD example covers one fictional crew request at a defined cutoff. It excludes taxes, fees, retainage, and other adjustments; it is not a customer result or an instruction to release funds.

Assume the documented rate is $100 per unit. Completion evidence supports 20 units under the approved scope. Another three units were requested as extra work, but their scope approval remains unresolved. A prior $500 payment is verified and allocated to the same approved work.

Item	USD	Review treatment
20 verified units at $100	$2,000	Amount approved under the stated assumptions
Three additional units at $100	$300	Open scope decision, tracked separately
Prior payment allocated to the approved work	$500	Verified settlement against that amount
Approved amount still outstanding	$1,500	$2,000 minus $500; requires separate release review

Do not add the unresolved $300 to the approved balance. Do not subtract it as a penalty either. Preserve the extra-work request and assign its decision to the appropriate owner.

The $1,500 balance explains approved work less verified settlement. It does not establish that payment is due immediately, that release is authorized, or that an earlier pending instruction can be ignored. Check the applicable terms and any existing scheduled payment before creating another instruction.

Reconcile the handoff before retrying

Link the approved request to the accounting entry and any export or payment reference. If a request is exported again, determine whether the destination already contains it. Match the stable request identifier and scope, rather than relying only on an amount that several requests may share.

After a timeout, inspect the destination and processing history before resending. A missing confirmation does not prove the first attempt failed. Keep an uncertain transfer visible with an owner until its outcome is reconciled.

When a prior payment covers several jobs or requests, retain the allocation used in this review. An unexplained total from a bank export cannot establish how much of this particular request has settled.

Hibe’s crew-payment FAQ places actual payments in the existing payroll or accounts-payable system, such as QuickBooks, Gusto, or the company’s direct process. Confirm where payment authorization, execution, and reconciliation happen for your team. Do not treat a Hibe approval record as proof that funds moved.

Test the checklist with exceptions

Before relying on the workflow, review these cases with the people who own the job and payment records:

• The rate matches, but completion evidence is missing. The request stays unresolved with a named evidence owner.
• A scope revision arrives after approval. The original decision and any later adjustment remain traceable.
• Part of the approved amount was already paid. Its allocation is verified before calculating the remaining balance.
• An export times out and is retried. The destination is reconciled before another entry or instruction is created.
• A payment is scheduled but fails. Approval history remains intact while the payment outcome is investigated.
• The reviewer role or accounting subscription changes. The intended approval and release controls are checked again.

Crew requests are one part of the job record. Use the supplier invoice checklist for material bills, the commission guide for sales compensation, and the job-cost reconciliation guide to compare recorded costs and remaining commitments at a cutoff.

For a Hibe evaluation, bring one ordinary request and one partial or disputed request, with identifying details shared only through an appropriate channel. Walk through the source matching, approval policy, exception routing, and accounting handoff before deciding which steps to automate.