Legacy Evaluation Form.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- PE-48401-RFQ-2027-000000624
- 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 completed projects. The form documents the evaluation of a consultant's work across two primary rating categories: Management and Prosecution/Progress. The evaluation is completed by the Agency/Owner Project Manager or Subject Matter Expert and includes fields for the consultant's PI number, GDOT PM information, project description, scope, phase, and service dates. The form requests scores based on a five-point scale where 5 exceeds requirements, 3 meets requirements, 1 does not meet requirements, and N/A indicates non-applicability.
The Management Rating section evaluates four factors including resource management, consultant independence, scope adherence, and communication/cooperation with agency staff, with a maximum possible score of 60 points. The Prosecution and Progress Rating section evaluates three factors including timely completion of deliverables, quality and completeness of work products, and budget compliance, with a maximum possible score of 40 points, for a combined total possible score of 100 points. The form includes signature lines for the Agency/Owner PM, consultant PM, and the Agency Evaluator's Supervisor, along with sections for justifications of scores and consultant responses. This evaluation tool serves as a performance assessment mechanism for tracking consultant compliance and quality on local projects within GDOT's purview.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| LAP Evaluation Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFQ 484_100126 GEC Services for Alternative D.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 .