EXHIBIT_E-_Engineer_Performance_Review_Template_FILLABLE.pdf

PDF 96 KB Posted

Attached to
Fire Rescue Headquarters and Training Facility Feasibility Study
Solicitation number
26-10
Issued by
Glades County, Florida

About this file

This is an Engineer Performance Review Template designed by Walton County for evaluating engineering firm performance on county projects. The template is intended to document both positive and negative experiences throughout referenced projects and will remain on file for a minimum of three years to inform future bid award recommendations by the Walton County Board of County Commissioners. The evaluation covers multiple service categories including Design, Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI), and other applicable project types, with comprehensive scoring across ten performance categories: Quality of Work, Quality/Accuracy of Pay Requests, Responsiveness, Schedule Adherence, Public Interaction, Change Order Management, Communication, Supervision of Subcontractors, Compliance with FDOT Requirements, and Scope of Services explanation.

The review employs a five-point scoring scale for each category, with performance levels ranging from Unacceptable (consistently below expectations) through Outstanding (far exceeds expectations), with comments required for any score of 1 or 5 and optional notes for other scores. The maximum possible score is 50 points if all categories are applicable, though evaluators may mark categories as "Not Applicable" as warranted. Specific performance descriptors are provided for each category, such as schedule adherence ranging from "perpetually behind schedule" (1 point) to "always ahead of schedule" (5 points), and change order management from "consistently initiates frivolous requests" (1 point) to "attempts to avoid change orders as much as possible" (5 points). The template includes spaces for firm name, project name, project manager identification, engineer of record, brief project description, and overall percentage score calculation, creating a standardized evaluation mechanism to support Walton County's future procurement decisions.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
HURRICANE_SPECIAL_NEEDS_SHELTER_RETROFIT_(Addendum_#6_Revision).pdf PDF
HURRICANE_SPECIAL_NEEDS_SHELTER_RETROFIT_(Addendum_#4_Revision).pdf PDF
HURRICANE_SPECIAL_NEEDS_SHELTER_RETROFIT.pdf PDF
RFP_26-10_Hurricane_Special_Needs_Shelter_-_LEGAL_ADVERTISEMENT.docx DOCX document
2425301_Revised_Electrical_Drawings_111825_Signe.pdf PDF
ITB_2612_Construction_Special_Needs_Shelter_Att_4_Engineering_Study_March_12_2024.pdf PDF
Addendum_#5_Electrical_Study._Revised.pdf PDF
Addendum_#5_Electrical_Specifications_Permit_Issue.pdf PDF
RFP_26-10_Special_Needs_Shelter_Engineering_Drawings_Specifications.pdf PDF
Special_Needs_Retrofit_MOD_#2_-_Fully_Executed_Contract.pdf PDF
Special_Needs_Agreement_Mod_#1.pdf PDF
RFP_26-10_Speical_Needs_Shelter_Draft_Contract.docx DOCX document
West_Bay_Parkway_Engineering_Design_Services_(Addendum_#3_Revision).pdf PDF
Fire_Rescue_Headquarters_and_Training_Facility_Feasibility_Study.pdf PDF
Fire_Rescue_Headquarters_and_Training_Facility_Feasibility_Study.pdf PDF
Fire_Rescue_Headquarters_and_Training_Facility_Feasibility_Study.pdf PDF
Fire_Rescue_Headquarters_and_Training_Facility_Feasibility_Study.pdf PDF
Attachement_I_-_BFD_June_20_2022_Presentation.pdf PDF
Attachement_I_-_BFD_June_20_2022_Presentation.pdf PDF
Attachement_I_-_BFD_June_20_2022_Presentation.pdf PDF
Attachement_I_-_BFD_June_20_2022_Presentation.pdf PDF
Attachement_I_-_BFD_June_20_2022_Presentation.pdf PDF
West_Bay_Parkway_Engineering_Design_Services_(Addendum_#1_Revision).pdf PDF
West_Bay_Parkway_Engineering_Design_Services.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_A_-_SCOPE_OF_WORK.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_A_-_SCOPE_OF_WORK.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_A_-_SCOPE_OF_WORK_(OCA_Edit).docx DOCX document
EXHIBIT_A_-_SCOPE_OF_WORK_(OCA_Edit).docx DOCX document
EXHIBIT_A_-_SCOPE_OF_WORK_(OCA_Edit).docx DOCX document
EXHIBIT_C-_WBP_Seg_1_PER_November_2019_FDOT.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_F-_Funding_Agreement_Walton-St._Joe-Grant_No._G3210.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_G-Supplemental_Agreement_No._1_TRIP_Grant_Agreement.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_A-_SCOPE_OF_WORK.docx DOCX document
EXHIBIT_D-_FDOT_TRIP_GRANT_AGREEMENT.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_E-_Engineer_Performance_Review_Template_FILLABLE.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_F-_Funding_Agreement_Walton-St._Joe-Grant_No._G3210.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_H-_Supplemental_Agreement_No._2_TRIP_Grant_Agreement.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_B-_Typical_Section_PER_November_2019_FDOT.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_H-_Supplemental_Agreement_No._2_TRIP_Grant_Agreement.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_B-_Typical_Section_PER_November_2019_FDOT.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_E-_Engineer_Performance_Review_Template_FILLABLE.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_F-_Funding_Agreement_Walton-St._Joe-Grant_No._G3210.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_G-Supplemental_Agreement_No._1_TRIP_Grant_Agreement.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_A-_SCOPE_OF_WORK.docx DOCX document
EXHIBIT_D-_FDOT_TRIP_GRANT_AGREEMENT.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_B-_Typical_Section_PER_November_2019_FDOT.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_C-_WBP_Seg_1_PER_November_2019_FDOT.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_D-_FDOT_TRIP_GRANT_AGREEMENT.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_G-Supplemental_Agreement_No._1_TRIP_Grant_Agreement.pdf PDF
EXHIBIT_A-_SCOPE_OF_WORK.docx DOCX document
Show 40 more

50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.

On GovTribe

Work with this file

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

Text version

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 .