Legacy Evaluation Form.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFQ 484-062226 Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) Services, District 4 - Tifton
- Solicitation number
- PE-48401-RFQ-2026-000000586
- Issued by
- Georgia
About this file
This is a Local Project Evaluation Form used by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) to assess consultant performance on state and local contract projects. The form is designed to evaluate Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) Services contracts, specifically for District 4 in Tifton. The evaluation covers two primary rating categories: Management (Factor A) and Prosecution and Progress (Factor B), with a total possible score of 100 points. The form captures project details including the evaluation date, consultant name, GDOT Project Identification number, project description and scope, project phase, and service dates, allowing agencies to systematically document consultant performance across resource management, scope adherence, communication, schedule compliance, deliverable completeness, and budget performance.
The scoring system uses a five-point scale where 5 represents exceeding requirements and expectations, 3 represents meeting requirements and expectations, and 1 represents not meeting requirements and expectations, with an N/A option available. Individual rating factors are weighted with point values ranging from 60 to 10 points based on importance, requiring the Agency/Owner Project Manager or Subject Matter Expert to provide written justifications for all scores. The form mandates signatures from the Agency/Owner PM, the consultant PM, and the Agency Evaluator's Supervisor to ensure accountability and documentation of the evaluation process. This standardized evaluation tool enables GDOT to maintain consistent performance metrics for consultant selection and management on future CEI service contracts.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFQ 484_062226 CEI Services_ District 4 _ Tif.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
| 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. | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | Consultant remained within the scope of work as contracted. | 5 | 20 | 0 | |
| 4 | Consultant communicated well and worked cooperatively with agency staff, and Consultant promptly responded to calls, emails, correspondences, and direction given by agency staff. | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | Ratings | ||||
| Sub Total: | 20 | ||||
| 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. | 3 | 15 | 0 | |
| 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. | 3 | 15 | 0 | |
| 2 | Ratings | ||||
| Sub Total: | 30 | ||||
| Agency/Owner PM/SME Justification for Scores (required): |
Consultant Response to Evaluation (if applicable):
Total Score: 50
| 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: | 60 | 5 | 3 | 1 | |
| 0 | Ratings | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | Ratings | 60 | 30 | 0 | |
| 2 | Ratings | 30 | 15 | 0 | |
| 3 | Ratings | 20 | 10 | 0 | |
| 4 | Ratings | 15 | 8 | 0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .