Legacy 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 Project Evaluation Form used by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and local agencies to assess consultant performance on projects. The form is completed by the Agency/Owner Project Manager or Subject Matter Expert following project completion or at specified intervals. It evaluates consultants across two primary rating categories: Management (factors assessing resource management, independence, scope adherence, and communication) and Prosecution and Progress (factors assessing timeliness of deliverables, quality and completeness of work products, and budget compliance). Each factor is rated on a scale of 5 (Exceeds Requirement and Expectation), 3 (Meets Requirement and Expectation), 1 (Does not Meet Requirement and Expectation), or N/A. The form requires justification for all scores and allows for consultant response to the evaluation.
The scoring methodology applies weighted values based on the number of ratings within each category, with ratings scaled to produce a total project score. Signatures are required from the Agency/Owner Project Manager, the Consultant Project Manager, and the Agency Evaluator's Supervisor (if applicable), with fields for evaluation date, project description, service dates, and project phase documentation. This evaluation form serves as a performance record and quality control mechanism for GDOT and local agency projects, providing objective data on consultant performance for future contract considerations and performance management purposes.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| LAP Evaluation Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFQ 484_121825 Lighting Engineering and Desig.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 .