Legacy Evaluation Form.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- PE-48401-RFQ-2026-000000576
- Issued by
- Fulton County, Georgia
About this file
This is a Local Project Evaluation Form used by GDOT (Georgia Department of Transportation) and local agencies to assess consultant performance on completed projects. The form is designed to evaluate consultant work across two primary rating categories: Management and Prosecution/Progress. The evaluation captures project-specific information including the consultant name, GDOT PI and PM numbers, agency/owner details, project description, phase, and service dates. The form documents the evaluator's assessment of consultant performance on routine tasks, scope adherence, communication, resource management, deadline compliance, deliverable quality, and budget management.
The evaluation employs a standardized five-point rating scale where 5 indicates exceeds requirements, 3 indicates meets requirements, 1 indicates does not meet requirements, and N/A is available when not applicable. Scores are calculated using a weighted scoring table that assigns point values based on the rating level and number of factors evaluated, with results ranging from minimal points for single factors to maximum points for multiple factors. The form requires justification for all scores from the Agency/Owner Project Manager or Subject Matter Expert, allows for consultant response, and includes signature lines for the Agency/Owner PM, Consultant PM, and the Agency Evaluator's Supervisor, ensuring accountability and documentation of the evaluation process.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFQ_484_061526 Special Drainage Studies.pdf | ||
| RFQ_484_061526 ADDENDUM 1.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. | 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 .