Legacy Evaluation Form.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- PE-48401-RFQ-2027-000000620
- Issued by
- Georgia
About this file
This is a Legacy Evaluation Form related to a Government Estimator Contract Services request for quote issued by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). The RFQ 484-090826 seeks to award two statewide contracts for government estimator services on a state-funded basis. The contracts will require prime consultants to maintain exclusivity with GDOT, prohibiting them from competing on any Design-Bid-Build contract teams during the contract term. Sub-consultants engaged under these contracts will similarly be excluded from future GDOT Design-Bid-Build contracts unless the Department grants a discretionary release. The evaluation form appears designed to assess and document the qualifications and performance of potential or existing contractors for these specialized estimation services.
The Legacy Evaluation Form serves as an assessment tool for determining contractor suitability and capability for the government estimator role. This document likely contains criteria and scoring mechanisms used by GDOT to evaluate respondents' technical qualifications, experience with similar projects, staff expertise, and past performance. Given the state-funded nature of the contracts and the exclusivity requirements imposed on both prime and sub-consultants, GDOT is prioritizing contractors with demonstrated expertise in construction estimation and a commitment to supporting the Department's project delivery needs without competing interests.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| LAP Evaluation Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFQ_484_090826 Government Estimator Contract .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 .