DOC

DT1087 - DESIGN CONSULTANT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT By

By Bradley Henry,2014-06-18 09:06
8 views 0
DT1087 - DESIGN CONSULTANT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT By

    CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT

    Wisconsin Department of Transportation DT1087 12/2005 Ch. 84 Wis. Stats. State Project ID Master Contract ID If Applicable Work Order No. If Applicable

    Region / Bureau County Construction Year

    Highway Project Name

    Consultant Project Manager Area Code - Telephone Number Subconsultant(s)

    Consultant Name and Address

     Resurface Recondition Reconstruct Pavement Replacement Major Bridge Maintenance Brg Rehab Bridge Replacement SHRM

     Other Description of Work Performed by Consultant Project Management Materials Inspection Staking Support Staff Other: Evaluation Period From To

    DOT Supervisor/Team Leader DOT Project Manager Project Complexity

     High Medium Low

    CONTRACT DATA Type of Contract 2 Party 3 Party with (Municipality)

    Date Contract Approved Original Contract Completion Date Date Actual Completion

     Average Construction Consultant Rating To nearest tenth

     EVALUATION

    1 = Unacceptable 2 = Below average 3 = Satisfactory 4 = Above average 5 = Outstanding

EVALUATION CRITERIA

    Performance evaluation should be completed at least on an annual basis, more often if needed and upon contract * completion.

    Rate each of the six performance items on the following pages based on the evaluation criteria (1-5) listed above. *

    Indicate performance level by checking one of the options: exceeds, satisfactory or needs improvement. Consider the * questions listed below each performance item and any unique issues where applicable.

    Comments pertaining to each rating shall be entered in the space provided below the rating. *

    General comments or suggestions and comments from other specialty areas should be considered and attached if * needed.

    Evaluation scores are recorded and kept on file in the Bureau of Financial Services for use in future selection * processes.

    Evaluation of subconsultant should be completed by prime consultant and at WIDOT’s option. *

    EVALUATION

1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT - Check as appropriate.

     Needs Note: Rate the consultant's representative you contact. Exceeds Satisfactory Improvement

     Was the consultant project manager/leader in control of the services provided to WIDOT?

     Did the consultant project manager/leader assign appropriate staff to the services?

     Was the communication between the consultant project manager/leader and the Department staff adequate?

     Was the coordination with the contractor, subconsultants and others involved in the project adequate?

     Did the consultant minimize staffing when possible?

     Was staff available when needed? Considering the above questions the overall Rating is: (Maximum 5)

    Comments/Unique issues

2. HUMAN RELATIONS - Check as appropriate.

     Needs Exceeds Satisfactory Improvement Did the consultant promote a good working relationship with the contractor?

     Was consultant responsive to requests from the Department?

     Was consultant cooperative?

     Did consultant react well to criticism?

     Was it easy to work with consultant?

     Was consultant courteous and helpful in dealing with property owners, the general public and agencies?

     Did the consultant properly represent WIDOT? Considering the above questions the overall Rating is: (Maximum 5)

    Comments/Unique issues

    EVALUATION

3. ENGINEERING, INSPECTION & SURVEY SKILLS - Check as appropriate.

     Needs Exceeds Satisfactory Improvement Did consultant demonstrate sound judgment of traffic control and public safety?

     Did consultant provide adequate erosion control inspection?

     Did the consultant’s inspection work reflect adequate level of experience and training?

     Were inspectors active and assertive in their inspection duties or were they just “observers”?

     Did the consultant demonstrate adequate survey skills?

     Did consultant work require more than necessary WIDOT assistance?

     Did the consultant use sound judgment regarding adhering to the specifications or taking corrective actions?

     Did the consultant provide adequate materials inspection and testing?

    Considering the above questions the overall Rating is: (Maximum 5)

    Comments/Unique issues

4. QUALITY OF WORK - Check as appropriate.

     Needs Exceeds Satisfactory Improvement Does the work reflect compliance with Department procedures, construction manuals and requirements?

     Were project records (diaries, finals, IRA, MCT, etc.) accurate, complete and easy to follow?

     Were errors or omissions numerous, serious, significant or costly?

    Considering the above questions the overall Rating is: (Maximum 5)

    Comments/Unique issues

    EVALUATION

    5. COST CONTROL - Check as appropriate.

     Needs Exceeds Satisfactory Improvement Did project result in the expenditure of reasonable time as defined or scoped?

     Was the consultant creative in controlling their own costs and developing efficiencies?

     Did the consultant minimize contractor overruns and/or change orders when possible?

    Considering the above questions the overall Rating is: (Maximum 5)

    Comments/Unique issues

     6. TIMELINESS - Check as appropriate.

     Needs Exceeds Satisfactory Improvement Did consultant effectively work with the contractor in coordinating the utility and other work by local agencies?

     Did consultant keep the Department informed of project work?

     Did consultant make decisions in a timely manner?

     Did consultant coordinate their services with contractor’s work in a timely manner?

     Did consultant submit reports, pay estimates and CCO’s in a timely manner?

     Did the consultant submit complete finals and materials

     reports within the timeframe specified in the contract? Months, Days

    Considering the above questions the overall Rating is: (Maximum 5)

    Comments/Unique issues

    Would you have reservations selecting this firm again for this type of project?

Describe strengths/weaknesses and provide suggestions for improvement.

Was this evaluation done at a face-to-face meeting?

    (Evaluator - WIDOT Signature) (Date)

    (Reviewer - Consultant Signature) (Date)

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com