EXHIBIT_B-_Engineer_Performance_Review_Template_FILLABLE.pdf

PDF 96 KB Posted

Attached to
Engineering Design Services: Mossy Head Industrial Park Additional Access Rd and Intersection Improvement Project State and local contract opportunity
Solicitation number
26-09
Issued by
Walton County, Florida

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI ·

This is an Engineer Performance Review Template designed by Walton County, Florida to evaluate engineering firms and individual engineers of record on projects throughout the county. The template documents both positive and negative performance experiences and is maintained on file for a minimum of three years to inform future bid award recommendations and assist the Walton County Board of County Commissioners in making informed decisions regarding contract awards. The evaluation framework assesses engineers across ten primary categories: Design, Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI), Quality of Work, Quality and Accuracy of Pay Requests, Responsiveness, Schedule, Public Interaction, Change Orders, Communication, Supervision of Subcontractors, and Compliance with FDOT Requirements. Each category is scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with performance levels defined as Unacceptable (1), Below Satisfactory (2), Satisfactory (3), Above Satisfactory (4), and Outstanding (5). The overall score is calculated as a percentage based only on applicable categories, with a maximum of 50 points when all categories apply. Evaluators must provide written comments for any score of 1 or 5, and additional notes may be recorded for any other performance level.

The template requires detailed information including firm name, project name, project manager, engineer of record, brief project description, type of service, and general comments. Instructions mandate that evaluators document specific performance observations within each category, with particular emphasis on scoring justification and narrative support. Comments addressing schedule performance must indicate whether the engineer was ahead of schedule, on schedule per contract, or behind schedule, while public interaction scoring includes assessment of community engagement and appropriateness of interactions. The template distinguishes between Design and CEI evaluations as separate service types and includes checkbox options to mark categories as "Not Applicable" when they do not pertain to the specific project engagement. This comprehensive evaluation instrument serves as a standardized mechanism for Walton County to maintain consistent performance records and utilize historical performance data in future procurement decisions.

View the file

Other files for this state and local contract opportunity

Other files attached to Engineering Design Services: Mossy Head Industrial Park Additional Access Rd and Intersection Improvement Project, newest first.
File Type Posted
Engineering_Design_Services:_Mossy_Head_Industrial_Park_Additional_Access_Rd_and_Intersection_Improvement_Project.pdf PDF
Engineering_Design_Services:_Mossy_Head_Industrial_Park_Additional_Access_Rd_and_Intersection_Improvement_Project.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_A-_Location_Map.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_B-_Engineer_Performance_Review_Template_FILLABLE.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_A-_Location_Map.pdf PDF

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

DESIGN CEI

score

5 ______________________________________

2 ______________________________________ score

5 ______________________________________

4 ______________________________________

3 ______________________________________

2 ______________________________________ score

5 ______________________________________

4 Above Satisfactory ______________________________________

3 Satisfactory ______________________________________

2 Below Satisfactory Performance ______________________________________

Instructions: In each section below the evaluator must write the score in the provided box (1-5) that best describes the

Engineer's performance throughout the referenced project. Comments are required on any grade of 1 or 5 and any other comment should be written on the notes section below each category. Each category has a maximum of 5 points with the overall score consisting of only applicable categories. For example, if all categories are applicable, then there is a maxiumum of 50 points.

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

TYPE OF SERVICE (CIRCLE): OTHER (DESCRIBE):

NOTES:

NOTES:

Unacceptable Performance

Consistently below expectations

Sometimes meets expectations, but needs improvement

Satisfactory

Performance Levels

General

Consistently meets expectations

Outstanding Performance

Far exceeds expectations

Walton County Engineer Performance Review

This Engineer Performance Review is designed to highlight both positive and negative experiences throughout the referenced project. This review will remain on file for no less than 3 years and may be used in future recommendations for bid award when it might aid the Walton County Board of

County Commissioners in making a more informed decision.

Above Satisfactory

FIRM NAME

PROJECT NAME

ENGINEER OF RECORD

Outstanding Performance

Far exceeds expectations

Quality of Work

Often exceeds expectations

Sometimes meets expectations, but needs improvement

Often exceeds expectations

Below Satisfactory Performance

Above Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Consistently meets expectations

Below Satisfactory Performance

Quality/Accuracy of Pay Requests

Outstanding Performance

Consistently meets expectations

Sometimes meets expectations, but needs improvement

Often exceeds expectations

Far exceeds expectations

Unacceptable Performance

Consistently below expectations

PROJECT MANAGER

1 Unacceptable Performance score

5 ______________________________________

3 ______________________________________

2 ______________________________________ score

5 ______________________________________

Always ahead of schedule

4 ______________________________________

Regularly ahead of schedule

3 ______________________________________

On schedule in accordance with Contract

2 ______________________________________

Consistently behind schedule

1 Unacceptable Performance ______________________________________

______________________________________ Check if Not Applicable score

5 ______________________________________

Always interacted well with the community

2 Below Satisfactory Performance

1 Unacceptable Performance ______________________________________

Check if Not Applicable score

5 ______________________________________

3 Satisfactory

1 Unacceptable Performance score 5 ______________________________________

2 ______________________________________

NOTES:

Outstanding Performance and cost of necessary change orders

Perpetually behind schedule to the point of not meeting Contracted timeline

Above Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Below Satisfactory Performance

Schedule

Consistently below expectations

Outstanding Performance

Responsiveness

Far exceeds expectations

Above Satisfactory

NOTES:

Satisfactory

Communication

Change Order

Consistently meets expectations

Occasionally interacted well with the community

Below Satisfactory Performance

Outstanding Performance

Sometimes meets expectations, but needs improvement

Unacceptable Performance

Consistently below expectations

Adequate public interaction

NOTES:

NOTES:

NOTES:

Outstanding Performance

Satisfactory

Above Satisfactory

Public Interaction

Sometimes meets expectations, but needs improvement

Occasionally interacted poorly with the community

Consistently interacted poorly with the community

Attempts to avoid change orders as much as possible

Consistently initiates frivilous change order requests

Provides detailed explanation of the scope

Below Satisfactory Performance

Consistently meets expectations

Satisfactory

Often exceeds expectations

Above Satisfactory

Often exceeds expectations

Far exceeds expectations

Outstanding Performance

______________________________________Sometimes meets expectations, but needs improvement

1 Unacceptable Performance

______________________________________ Check if Not Applicable

Supervision of Subcontractors score

1 Unacceptable Performance

Check if Not Applicable

Compliance with FDOT Requirements score

1 Unacceptable Performance

General Comments:

NOTES:

NOTES:

NOTES:

Satisfactory

Consistently meets expectations

Below Satisfactory Performance

Sometimes meets expectations, but needs improvement

Outstanding Performance

Far exceeds expectations

Above Satisfactory

Often exceeds expectations

Often exceeds expectations

Satisfactory

Consistently meets expectations

Below Satisfactory Performance

Consistently below expectations

Outstanding Performance

Sometimes meets expectations, but needs improvement

Consistently below expectations

OVERALL SCORE

PERCENTAGE

Far exceeds expectations

Above Satisfactory

Consistently below expectations

FIRM NAME:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT MANAGER:
ENGINEER OF RECORD:
BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
OTHER DESCRIBE:
PERCENTAGE:
SCORE:
OUT OF POSSIBLE:
General Comments:
Design: Off
CEI: Off
1:
2:
3:
0:
4:
General Score:
General Notes:
Quality of Work Score:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
Quality of Work Notes:
Pay Request Score:
11:
12:
13:
14:
15:
16:
Responsiveness Score:
Pay Request Notes:
17:
18:
19:
20:
Responsiveness Notes:
21:
Schedule Score:
22:
23:
24:
25:
26:
27:
Schedule Check Box: Off
Schedule Notes:
PI Score:
28:
29:
30:
31:
32:
33:
34:
PI Check Box: Off
PI Notes:
CO Score:
35:
36:
37:
38:
CO Notes:
Communication Score:
39:
40:
41:
42:
43:
Communication Check Box: Off
Communication Notes:
SoS Score:
44:
45:
46:
47:
48:
SoS Checkbox: Off
SoS Notes:
FDOT Score:
49:
50:
51:
52:
53:
FDOT Notes:

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .