Legacy Evaluation Form.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- PE-48401-RFQ-2027-000000614
- Issued by
- Barrow County, 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 completed projects. The form is designed to evaluate consultants across two primary rating categories: Management (Factor A) and Prosecution and Progress (Factor B). The evaluation covers consultant resource management, independence, scope adherence, communication, timeliness of deliverable completion, quality of work products, and budget performance. The form accommodates project phases and service dates as specified in individual contracts, with evaluations completed by the Agency/Owner Project Manager or Subject Matter Expert.
The evaluation utilizes a standardized scoring system with ratings of 5 (Exceeds Requirement and Expectation), 3 (Meets Requirement and Expectation), 1 (Does not Meet Requirement and Expectation), or N/A. Each rating factor is assigned a point value, with Management ratings weighted at 60 points total and Prosecution and Progress ratings weighted at 40 points total, allowing for a maximum total score of 100 points. The form requires documented justification for all scores provided by the Agency/Owner PM/SME and includes provisions for consultant response and acknowledgment by supervisory personnel. The example shown reflects a completed evaluation with a total score of 50 points.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| LAP Evaluation Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFQ 484_081726 CEI Services for SR 316 Bundle.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. | 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 .