EXHIBIT_E-_Engineer_Performance_Review_Template_FILLABLE.pdf
PDF 96 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 26-10
- Issued by
- Glades County, Florida
About this file
This is an Engineer Performance Review Template fillable form designed by Walton County for evaluating engineering consultant performance on county projects. The template assesses engineers of record and project managers across multiple service categories, including Design, Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI), Quality of Work, Quality/Accuracy of Pay Requests, Responsiveness, Schedule Adherence, Public Interaction, Supervision of Subcontractors, Compliance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Requirements, Change Order Management, and Communication. Each category is scored on a 1-5 scale with defined performance levels: Unacceptable Performance (1), Below Satisfactory Performance (2), Satisfactory (3), Above Satisfactory (4), and Outstanding Performance (5). The form requires evaluators to provide written comments for any score of 1 or 5, with additional notes sections available for each category. The overall score is calculated as a percentage based only on applicable categories, with a maximum of 50 points if all categories apply.
The Engineer Performance Review remains on file with Walton County for a minimum of three years and serves as a reference document for future bid award recommendations to the Walton County Board of County Commissioners. The form captures firm name, project name, project manager, engineer of record, and brief project descriptions, along with a general comments section for comprehensive performance documentation. This evaluation tool is intended to document both positive and negative experiences throughout referenced projects to inform future procurement decisions and vendor selection processes.
View the file
Other files
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 .