Contractor Excel Template 40178 | Contractor Evaluation Form 2020 08 Final

Partial file snippet.

Sheet 1: Sheet1

CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM

Link to Instructions

Name of Contractor:

Prime

Sub

Contractor's Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Phone:

Project Number(s)

and Description:

Type of Work*:

* Type of Work Descriptions and Guide Link

Contract Amount:

Start Date:

Finish Date:

Evaluation Date:

Type of Rating:
Intermediate
Annual
Final

Total Score
0%

Contractor's performance to be evaluated by the Chief Inspector/Resident Engineer

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

1. Contractor’s Quality Control Program Implementation

Score:

5. QC Plan exceeded project requirements.

4. QC plan met project requirements and required only minor revisions.

3. QC plan met project requirements but required moderate revisions.

2. QC plan met project requirements but required extensive revisions and DOT involvement.

1. QC plan did not meet project requirements, accepted with reduced compensation.

Comments:

2. Quality of Work and Workmanship

Score:

5. Exceeded project requirements and required no rework.

4. Met project requirements and required only minor rework with no DOT involvement.

3. Met project requirements but required moderate rework at DOT direction.

2. Met project requirements but required extensive rework at DOT direction.

1. Did not meet project requirements; accepted with reduced compensation.

Comments:

3. Contractor’s Project Supervisory Staff

Score:

5. Demonstrated extraordinary skill and onsite to direct others as needed.

4. Demonstrated necessary skill and onsite to direct others as needed.

3. Skill and/or availability periodically hindered the meeting of project requirements.

2. Skill and/or availability often hindered the meeting of project requirements.

1. Skill and/or availability constantly hindered the meeting of project requirements.

Comments:

4. Contractor’s Skilled Workforce

Score:

5. Demonstrated outstanding skill and onsite as needed.

4. Demonstrated adequate skill and onsite as needed.

3. Skill and/or availability periodically hindered the meeting of project requirements.

2. Skill and/or availability frequently hindered the meeting of project requirements.

1. Skill and/or availability constantly hindered the meeting of project requirements.

Comments:

5. Equipment Quality and Condition

Score:

5. Provided types and quantities of construction equipment in good working

condition that exceeded project requirements, and repairs never caused delays.

4. Provided appropriate types and quantities of construction equipment in good

working order that met the project requirements, and repairs never caused delays.

3. Provided appropriate types and quantities of construction equipment that met

the project requirements but required some repairs that caused minor delays.

2. Provided equipment substandard in productivity and efficiency requiring

frequent repairs that caused delays in the project.

1. Provided inadequate equipment requiring constant repair, sacrificing the

quality of the work, and/or causing significant delays.

Comments:

Performance of Work

6. The Contractor’s Safety Program

Score:

5. Safety program exceeds project requirements; Contractor manages program

independently.

4. Met all project requirements with minimal need for DOT involvement.

3. Met all project requirements with periodic DOT direction.

2. Met all project requirements with constant DOT direction.

1. Failed to meet all project requirements and required constant DOT direction.

Comments:

7a. Traffic Control/Maintenance & Protection of Traffic

Score:

5. Traffic control program exceeds project requirements; Contractor manages

requirements independently.

4. Met all project requirements with minimal need for DOT involvement.

3. Met all project requirements with periodic DOT direction.

2. Met all project requirements with constant DOT direction.

1. Did not meet project requirements; accepted with reduced compensation

(liquidated damages).

Comments:

7b. Building and Fire Code Inspections (Vertical Projects Only)

Score:

5. Work always constructed to code and requiring no reinspection.

4. Work usually constructed to code and requiring minor corrective work

prior to reinspection.

3. Work usually constructed to code and requiring moderate corrective work

prior to reinspection.

2. Work frequently constructed to code and requiring extensive corrective

work prior to reinspection.

1. Work constructed contstantly not to code and strongly impacted the

contract.

Comments:

8. Contractor’s Work Schedules and Project Updates

Score:

5. Project schedules always submitted on time and always reflective of actual

work activities.

4. Project schedules usually submitted on time and always reflective of actual

work activities.

3. Project schedules usually submitted on time and usually reflective of actual

work activities.

2. Project schedules frequently submitted late or not reflective of actual work

activities.

1. Project schedules not submitted or not reflective of actual work activities

enough to be useful as a planning tool.

Comments:

9. Coordination and Cooperation with other Contractor(s), Sub(s) and Utilities

Score:

5. Interaction was outstanding throughout the project and was a strong

contribution to the success of the project.

4. Interaction was timely and satisfactory throughout the project.

3. Interaction was adequate but slightly impeded the success of the project.

2. Interaction was poor and caused periodic problems for the project.

1. Interaction was the cause of constant problems and strongly impacted the

success of the project.

Comments:

10. Contractor’s Compliance to Plans, Specifications, and Engineer

Score:

5. Contractor’s compliance was outstanding throughout the project.

4. Contractor’s compliance was good throughout the project.

3. Contractor’s compliance was adequate throughout the project.

2. Contractor’s compliance was adequate but required DOT involvement.

1. Contractor’s compliance was poor but required extensive DOT involvement.

Comments:

11. The Contractor’s Cooperation and Willingness to Discuss Potential Contract Disputes

Score:

5. The Contractor’s cooperation was outstanding and issues were resolved at lowest appropriate level.

4. The Contractor’s cooperation was good and issues resolved at the project level.

3. The Contractor’s cooperation was adequate but required issues to be escalated.

2. The Contractor’s cooperation was poor and many issues required to be escalated.

1. The Contractor’s cooperation was poor and severely impacted the project.

Comments:

12. Non-Conforming Work and Non-Compliance Notices

Score:

5. Work performance exceeded project requirements, contributing to the success of the project.

4. Work performances met project requirements.

3. Work performance issues occasionally did not meet project requirements.

2. Work performance issues frequently did not meet project requirements and required Non-Compliance Notices.

1. Work performance issues constantly hindered work performance and Non-Compliance Notices were issued.

Comments:

13. Contractor Engineering and Surveying Layout

Score:

5. Contractor had thorough knowledge of plans and engineering layout requirements.

4. Contractor adequately performed engineering and survey layout.

3. Contractor made several mistakes in engineering and survey layout.

2. Contractor made several mistakes and inspection oversight was greater than normal.

1. Contractor made several mistakes, inspection oversight was greater than normal, and quality assurance checks

were excessive.

Comments:

Management of Work

14. Field Closeout Activities/Punch List

Score:

5. Punch list completed job closeout activities within 30 days.

4. Punch list completed job closeout activities within 45 days.

3. Punch list completed job closeout activities after 60 days.

2. Punch list completed job closeout activities after 60 days with significant Department involvement.

1. Punch list completed with major delays and/or liquidated damages.

Comments:

15. Administration Closeout

Score:

5. Completed job closeout activities within 30 days.

4. Completed job closeout activities within 60 days.

3. Completed job closeout activities after 90 days.

2. Completed job closeout activities with delays.

1. Completed job closeout activities with major delays.

Comments:

16. Control of Materials: Source of Supply, Samples, Testing, Material Certificates

Score:

5. Material management was outstanding throughout the project and was a strong

contribution to the success of the project.

4. Material management was adequate throughout the project.

3. Material management was adequate but slightly impeded the success of the project.

2. Material management was poor and caused delays and quality problems for the project.

1. Material management was the cause of constant problems and strongly impacted the

success of the project.

Comments:

17. Project Submittals: Shop Drawings/Working Drawings

Score:

5. Exceeded project requirements and contributed to the success of the project.

4. Timely, accurate, and in accordance with project requirements.

3. Usually timely, accurate, and in accordance with project requirements.

2. Frequently late, inaccurate, and not in accordance with project requirements.

1. Constantly late with corrections required and seldom in accordance with project requirements.

Comments:

18. Jobsite Housekeeping

Score:

5. Exceeded project requirements and contributed to jobsite safety and productivity.

4. Met all project requirements with minimal DOT direction.

3. Met all project requirements with periodic DOT direction.

2. Substandard requiring frequent DOT direction.

1. Inadequate requiring constant DOT direction.

Comments:

EEO

19. EEO, Davis Bacon Act, and DBE Compliance

Score:

5. Exceeded project requirements for conformance to current rules and regulations.

4. Met all project requirements with minimal DOT guidance.

3. Met all project requirements with periodic DOT guidance

2. Substandard at meeting project requirements requiring frequent DOT involvement.

1. Inadequate at meeting project requirements requiring constant DOT involvement

and the assessment of Sanctions.

Comments:

ENVIRONMENTAL

20. Environmental

Score:

5. Exceeded requirements of the project, providing extra effort to improve

surroundings.

4. Met all project requirements with minimal DOT direction.

3. Met all project requirements with periodic DOT direction.

2. Met all project requirements but required constant DOT direction.

1. Did not meet all project requirements and required constant DOT direction.

Comments:

Part Two – General Comments

1. Areas of Contractor performance needing improvement:

2. Areas of performance in which the Contractor excelled:

3. Additional remarks about the Contractor’s performance on the project:

Rated by:

Chief Inspector/

Resident Engineer:

Signature:

Reviewed by:

District

Project Engineer:

Signature:

Contractor Signature:

The words contained in this file might help you see if this file matches what you are looking for:

...Sheet contractor evaluation form link to instructions name of prime sub s address city state zip phone project number and description type work descriptions guide contract amount start date finish rating intermediate annual final total score performance be evaluated by the chief inspectorresident engineer quality assurancequality control rsquo program implementation qc plan exceeded requirements met required only minor revisions but moderate extensive dot involvement did not meet accepted with reduced compensation comments workmanship no rework at direction supervisory staff demonstrated extraordinary skill onsite direct others as needed necessary andor availability periodically hindered meeting often constantly skilled workforce outstanding adequate frequently equipment condition provided types quantities construction in good working that repairs never caused delays appropriate order some substandard productivity efficiency requiring frequent inadequate constant repair sacrificing cau...

Related files

Share

Help

CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM
Link to Instructions

Name of Contractor:					Prime	Sub
Contractor's Address:
City:					State:	Zip:
Phone:
Project Number(s)
and Description:
Type of Work*:

* Type of Work Descriptions and Guide Link

Contract Amount:

Start Date:		Finish Date:			Evaluation Date:

Type of Rating:	Intermediate	Annual		Final

			Total Score	0%
Contractor's performance to be evaluated by the Chief Inspector/Resident Engineer



Quality Assurance/Quality Control

1. Contractor’s Quality Control Program Implementation						Score:
5. QC Plan exceeded project requirements.
4. QC plan met project requirements and required only minor revisions.
3. QC plan met project requirements but required moderate revisions.
2. QC plan met project requirements but required extensive revisions and DOT involvement.
1. QC plan did not meet project requirements, accepted with reduced compensation.

Comments:






2. Quality of Work and Workmanship						Score:
5. Exceeded project requirements and required no rework.
4. Met project requirements and required only minor rework with no DOT involvement.
3. Met project requirements but required moderate rework at DOT direction.
2. Met project requirements but required extensive rework at DOT direction.
1. Did not meet project requirements; accepted with reduced compensation.

Comments:





3. Contractor’s Project Supervisory Staff						Score:
5. Demonstrated extraordinary skill and onsite to direct others as needed.
4. Demonstrated necessary skill and onsite to direct others as needed.
3. Skill and/or availability periodically hindered the meeting of project requirements.
2. Skill and/or availability often hindered the meeting of project requirements.
1. Skill and/or availability constantly hindered the meeting of project requirements.

Comments:






4. Contractor’s Skilled Workforce						Score:
5. Demonstrated outstanding skill and onsite as needed.
4. Demonstrated adequate skill and onsite as needed.
3. Skill and/or availability periodically hindered the meeting of project requirements.
2. Skill and/or availability frequently hindered the meeting of project requirements.
1. Skill and/or availability constantly hindered the meeting of project requirements.

Comments:






5. Equipment Quality and Condition						Score:
5. Provided types and quantities of construction equipment in good working
condition that exceeded project requirements, and repairs never caused delays.
4. Provided appropriate types and quantities of construction equipment in good
working order that met the project requirements, and repairs never caused delays.
3. Provided appropriate types and quantities of construction equipment that met
the project requirements but required some repairs that caused minor delays.
2. Provided equipment substandard in productivity and efficiency requiring
frequent repairs that caused delays in the project.
1. Provided inadequate equipment requiring constant repair, sacrificing the
quality of the work, and/or causing significant delays.

Comments:














Performance of Work

6. The Contractor’s Safety Program						Score:
5. Safety program exceeds project requirements; Contractor manages program
independently.
4. Met all project requirements with minimal need for DOT involvement.
3. Met all project requirements with periodic DOT direction.
2. Met all project requirements with constant DOT direction.
1. Failed to meet all project requirements and required constant DOT direction.

Comments:






7a. Traffic Control/Maintenance & Protection of Traffic						Score:
5. Traffic control program exceeds project requirements; Contractor manages
requirements independently.
4. Met all project requirements with minimal need for DOT involvement.
3. Met all project requirements with periodic DOT direction.
2. Met all project requirements with constant DOT direction.
1. Did not meet project requirements; accepted with reduced compensation
(liquidated damages).

Comments:






OR

7b. Building and Fire Code Inspections (Vertical Projects Only)						Score:
5. Work always constructed to code and requiring no reinspection.
4. Work usually constructed to code and requiring minor corrective work
prior to reinspection.
3. Work usually constructed to code and requiring moderate corrective work
prior to reinspection.
2. Work frequently constructed to code and requiring extensive corrective
work prior to reinspection.
1. Work constructed contstantly not to code and strongly impacted the
contract.

Comments:







8. Contractor’s Work Schedules and Project Updates						Score:
5. Project schedules always submitted on time and always reflective of actual
work activities.
4. Project schedules usually submitted on time and always reflective of actual
work activities.
3. Project schedules usually submitted on time and usually reflective of actual
work activities.
2. Project schedules frequently submitted late or not reflective of actual work
activities.
1. Project schedules not submitted or not reflective of actual work activities
enough to be useful as a planning tool.

Comments:






9. Coordination and Cooperation with other Contractor(s), Sub(s) and Utilities						Score:
5. Interaction was outstanding throughout the project and was a strong
contribution to the success of the project.
4. Interaction was timely and satisfactory throughout the project.
3. Interaction was adequate but slightly impeded the success of the project.
2. Interaction was poor and caused periodic problems for the project.
1. Interaction was the cause of constant problems and strongly impacted the
success of the project.

Comments:






10. Contractor’s Compliance to Plans, Specifications, and Engineer						Score:
5. Contractor’s compliance was outstanding throughout the project.
4. Contractor’s compliance was good throughout the project.
3. Contractor’s compliance was adequate throughout the project.
2. Contractor’s compliance was adequate but required DOT involvement.
1. Contractor’s compliance was poor but required extensive DOT involvement.

Comments:












11. The Contractor’s Cooperation and Willingness to Discuss Potential Contract Disputes						Score:
5. The Contractor’s cooperation was outstanding and issues were resolved at lowest appropriate level.
4. The Contractor’s cooperation was good and issues resolved at the project level.
3. The Contractor’s cooperation was adequate but required issues to be escalated.
2. The Contractor’s cooperation was poor and many issues required to be escalated.
1. The Contractor’s cooperation was poor and severely impacted the project.

Comments:






12. Non-Conforming Work and Non-Compliance Notices						Score:
5. Work performance exceeded project requirements, contributing to the success of the project.
4. Work performances met project requirements.
3. Work performance issues occasionally did not meet project requirements.
2. Work performance issues frequently did not meet project requirements and required Non-Compliance Notices.
1. Work performance issues constantly hindered work performance and Non-Compliance Notices were issued.

Comments:






13. Contractor Engineering and Surveying Layout						Score:
5. Contractor had thorough knowledge of plans and engineering layout requirements.
4. Contractor adequately performed engineering and survey layout.
3. Contractor made several mistakes in engineering and survey layout.
2. Contractor made several mistakes and inspection oversight was greater than normal.
1. Contractor made several mistakes, inspection oversight was greater than normal, and quality assurance checks
were excessive.

Comments:


















Management of Work

14. Field Closeout Activities/Punch List						Score:
5. Punch list completed job closeout activities within 30 days.
4. Punch list completed job closeout activities within 45 days.
3. Punch list completed job closeout activities after 60 days.
2. Punch list completed job closeout activities after 60 days with significant Department involvement.
1. Punch list completed with major delays and/or liquidated damages.

Comments:






15. Administration Closeout						Score:
5. Completed job closeout activities within 30 days.
4. Completed job closeout activities within 60 days.
3. Completed job closeout activities after 90 days.
2. Completed job closeout activities with delays.
1. Completed job closeout activities with major delays.

Comments:






16. Control of Materials: Source of Supply, Samples, Testing, Material Certificates						Score:
5. Material management was outstanding throughout the project and was a strong
contribution to the success of the project.
4. Material management was adequate throughout the project.
3. Material management was adequate but slightly impeded the success of the project.
2. Material management was poor and caused delays and quality problems for the project.
1. Material management was the cause of constant problems and strongly impacted the
success of the project.

Comments:















17. Project Submittals: Shop Drawings/Working Drawings						Score:
5. Exceeded project requirements and contributed to the success of the project.
4. Timely, accurate, and in accordance with project requirements.
3. Usually timely, accurate, and in accordance with project requirements.
2. Frequently late, inaccurate, and not in accordance with project requirements.
1. Constantly late with corrections required and seldom in accordance with project requirements.

Comments:






18. Jobsite Housekeeping						Score:
5. Exceeded project requirements and contributed to jobsite safety and productivity.
4. Met all project requirements with minimal DOT direction.
3. Met all project requirements with periodic DOT direction.
2. Substandard requiring frequent DOT direction.
1. Inadequate requiring constant DOT direction.

Comments:







EEO


19. EEO, Davis Bacon Act, and DBE Compliance						Score:
5. Exceeded project requirements for conformance to current rules and regulations.
4. Met all project requirements with minimal DOT guidance.
3. Met all project requirements with periodic DOT guidance
2. Substandard at meeting project requirements requiring frequent DOT involvement.
1. Inadequate at meeting project requirements requiring constant DOT involvement
and the assessment of Sanctions.

Comments:













ENVIRONMENTAL


20. Environmental						Score:
5. Exceeded requirements of the project, providing extra effort to improve
surroundings.
4. Met all project requirements with minimal DOT direction.
3. Met all project requirements with periodic DOT direction.
2. Met all project requirements but required constant DOT direction.
1. Did not meet all project requirements and required constant DOT direction.

Comments:









Part Two – General Comments


1. Areas of Contractor performance needing improvement:











2. Areas of performance in which the Contractor excelled:

















3. Additional remarks about the Contractor’s performance on the project:













Rated by:
Chief Inspector/
Resident Engineer:


Signature:



Reviewed by:
District
Project Engineer:


Signature:






Contractor Signature:

Related files

Share

Share to social media

Help

Login Area