LAP Evaluation Form.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- PE-48401-RFQ-2026-000000477
- Issued by
- Georgia
About this file
This is a Local Administered Project (LAP) Evaluation Form used by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) to assess consultant performance on transportation projects across Region 1 counties in Districts 1, 6, and 7, and Region 2 counties in Districts 2, 3, 4, and 5. The form evaluates lighting engineering and design services through a structured rating system applied at project completion or specified evaluation intervals. The evaluation captures project identification information including the GDOT Project Identification Number, project manager details, agency information, project description, phase, and service dates. The assessment period and consultant name are documented to establish clear accountability and performance tracking.
The evaluation form employs a three-tiered scoring system across two primary rating categories: Management (four factors) and Prosecution and Progress (three factors). Management factors assess resource appropriateness, consultant independence, scope adherence, and communication/cooperation with GDOT staff. Prosecution and Progress factors evaluate timeliness of deliverables, quality and completeness of invoices and reports, and budget compliance. Ratings of 5 indicate exceeds requirements, 3 indicates meets requirements, and 1 indicates does not meet requirements, with scores calculated using a weighted formula based on the number of factors rated. GDOT Project Manager and Supervisor acknowledgements are required when any factor receives a rating of 1, and the form includes space for consultant response and local agency comments, with final sign-off required from both GDOT PM and consultant PM representatives.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFQ 484_121825 Lighting Engineering and Desig.pdf | ||
| Legacy Evaluation Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
LAP Evaluation Form
Local Administered Project (LAP) Evaluation Form
Evaluation Date:
Consultant:
GDOT PI No:
GDOT PM:
Agency:
Agency PM:
Phone:
Email:
Project Description & Scope:
Project Phase:
Service Dates:
Ratings: 5 = Exceeds Requirement and Expectation; 3 = Meets Requirement and Expectation; 1 = Does not Meet Requirement and Expectation; or N/A Requirement and Expectation
| A | Management | Rating | Factor | ||
| 1 | Consultant appropriately managed resources (manpower, equipment, subconsultants, etc.) | N/A | - - - | 1 | |
| 2 | Consultant worked independently and without significant help from Agency's staff on routine tasks. | N/A | - - - | 1 | |
| 3 | Consultant remained within the scope of work as contracted. | N/A | - - - | 1 | |
| 4 | Consultant communicated well and worked cooperatively with GDOT staff, and Consultant promptly responded to calls, emails, correspondences, and direction given by GDOT staff. | N/A | - - - | 1 | |
| 0 | Ratings | ||||
| Sub Total: | 0.00 | ||||
| GDOT PM/SME Justification for Scores (required): |
Consultant Response to Evaluation (if applicable):
| B | Prosecution and Progress | Rating | Factor | ||
| 5 | Consultant completed the deliverable(s) by the latest agreed upon date or within the duration contracted, as applicable. | N/A | - - - | 1 | |
| 6 | All invoices, studies, reports, design requirements, and details are complete, accurate, clear, and concise. Revisions are minimal. | N/A | - - - | 1 | |
| 7 | Consultant completed the deliverable(s) within the assigned budget. | N/A | - - - | 1 | |
| 0 | Ratings | ||||
| Sub Total: | 0.00 | ||||
| GDOT PM/SME Justification for Scores (required): |
Consultant Response to Evaluation (if applicable):
Total Score: 0
| GDOT PM: | ||
| Signature: | Date: | |
| Supervisor's Acknowledgement: |
Local's Comments:
Local's Acknowledgement:
| The GDOT Assistant Office Head (AOH) and Office Head (OH) Acknowledgements are required if a Rating of 1 is recorded for any item above. |
| AOH Acknowledgement: OH Acknowledgement: |
| Consultant PM: | ||
| Signature: | Date: |
| Agency Evaluator's | ||
| Supervisor (if applicable): | ||
| Signature: | Date: |
&12&A Page &P of &N
Scoring
| 1 | |||||
| 3 | |||||
| 5 | |||||
| N/A | |||||
| Factor Table | |||||
| Section Value: | 50 | 5 | 3 | 1 | |
| 0 | Ratings | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| 1 | Ratings | 50.00 | 30.00 | 10.00 | |
| 2 | Ratings | 25.00 | 15.00 | 5.00 | |
| 3 | Ratings | 16.67 | 10.00 | 3.33 | |
| 4 | Ratings | 12.50 | 7.50 | 2.50 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .