Legacy Evaluation Form.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFQ-484-120325
- Solicitation number
- PE-48401-RFQ-2026-000000466
- Issued by
- Fulton County, Georgia
About this file
This is a Local Project Evaluation Form used by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) to assess consultant performance on local projects related to roadway design review services. The form is designed to evaluate consultants across two primary rating categories: Management and Prosecution/Progress. The evaluation captures project-specific information including the project description, phase, and service dates, along with the names and contact information of relevant GDOT personnel and the consulting firm's project manager. The form requires ratings on a scale where 5 exceeds requirements, 3 meets requirements, and 1 does not meet requirements, with an N/A option for non-applicable items.
The Management section assesses four factors: resource management, consultant independence, adherence to scope of work, and communication and cooperation with agency staff. The Prosecution and Progress section evaluates three factors: timely completion of deliverables, quality and completeness of invoices and reports, and budget compliance. Each rating is weighted according to a scoring table that assigns point values based on the number of factors being rated, with the total possible score calculated from the sub-totals of both sections. The form requires justification for all scores from the Agency/Owner Project Manager or Subject Matter Expert, allows for consultant response, and requires signatures from the Consultant PM, Agency/Owner PM, and the Agency Evaluator's Supervisor for official acknowledgment.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFQ_484_120325 ADDENDUM 1.pdf | ||
| RFQ_484_120325 (Shortlist) .pdf | ||
| RFQ_484_120325 Notice of Award.pdf | ||
| LAP Evaluation Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFQ_484_120325 _Selection of Firm for Negotia.pdf | ||
| RFQ_484_120325 Roadway Design Review Services.pdf |
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
| 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 agency staff, and Consultant promptly responded to calls, emails, correspondences, and direction given by agency staff. | N/A | - - - | 1 | |
| 0 | Ratings | ||||
| Sub Total: | 0.00 | ||||
| Agency/Owner 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 | ||||
| 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: | 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 .