Legacy Evaluation Form.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted

Attached to
RFQ-484-091225 Geotechnical Engineering, Environmental, and Geotechnical Field Operation Svcs
Solicitation number
PE-48401-RFQ-2026-000000416
Issued by
Fulton County, Georgia

About this file

The document is a Legacy Evaluation Form from the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), designed to assess consultant performance across multiple rating categories. The form provides a structured framework for evaluating consultants on management, communication, project execution, and deliverable quality, using a scoring system ranging from 1 (does not meet requirements) to 5 (exceeds requirements). The evaluation covers key performance areas including resource management, independent work, scope adherence, communication effectiveness, project completion timeliness, and budget compliance.

The evaluation form includes detailed subsections for scoring and weighting different performance factors, with specific rating criteria for management and prosecution/progress. The scoring methodology allows for nuanced assessment, with options for N/A ratings and specific point allocations for different performance levels. While the specific project details are not completed in this template, the form is clearly designed to provide a comprehensive and standardized method for GDOT to evaluate consultant performance across various dimensions of project delivery and professional conduct.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
RFQ_484_091225.pdf PDF
LAP 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

Local Project Evaluation Form

Local Project Evaluation Form

Evaluation Date:

Consultant:

GDOT PI No.(if applicable):

GDOT PM (if applicable):

Agency/Owner:

Agency/Owner 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

AManagementRatingFactor
1Consultant appropriately managed resources (manpower, equipment, subconsultants, etc.)N/A- - -1
2Consultant worked independently and without significant help from Agency's staff on routine tasks.N/A- - -1
3Consultant remained within the scope of work as contracted.N/A- - -1
4Consultant communicated well and worked cooperatively with agency staff, and Consultant promptly responded to calls, emails, correspondences, and direction given by agency staff.N/A- - -1
0Ratings
Sub Total:0.00
Agency/Owner PM/SME Justification for Scores (required):

Consultant Response to Evaluation (if applicable):

BProsecution and ProgressRatingFactor
5Consultant completed the deliverable(s) by the latest agreed upon date or within the duration contracted, as applicable.N/A- - -1
6All invoices, studies, reports, design requirements, and details are complete, accurate, clear, and concise. Revisions are minimal.N/A- - -1
7Consultant completed the deliverable(s) within the assigned budget.N/A- - -1
0Ratings
Sub Total:0.00
Agency/Owner PM/SME Justification for Scores (required):

Consultant Response to Evaluation (if applicable):

Total Score: 0

Agency/Owner PM:
Signature:Date:
Supervisor's 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:50531
0Ratings0.000.000.00
1Ratings50.0030.0010.00
2Ratings25.0015.005.00
3Ratings16.6710.003.33
4Ratings12.507.502.50

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