Legacy Evaluation Form_.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- PE-48401-RFQ-2027-000000634
- Issued by
- Georgia
About this file
This is a Local Project Evaluation Form used by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) to assess consultant performance on completed projects. The form is designed to evaluate consultants across two primary rating categories: Management (Section A) and Prosecution and Progress (Section B). The evaluation captures consultant performance in resource management, scope adherence, communication and cooperation with agency staff, timely completion of deliverables, accuracy and completeness of work products, and budget compliance. The form includes fields for the evaluation date, consultant name, GDOT Project Identification and Project Manager information, agency/owner details, project description and scope, project phase, and service dates. Ratings are assigned on a scale where 5 indicates exceeds requirements, 3 indicates meets requirements, 1 indicates does not meet requirements, or N/A for non-applicable items, with weighted scoring that yields a maximum total score of 100 points.
The evaluation form requires justification from the Agency/Owner Project Manager or Subject Matter Expert for all assigned scores and includes space for consultant response or rebuttal. The completed example shown demonstrates a total score of 50 points, with the Management section scoring 20 points and the Prosecution and Progress section scoring 30 points. The form requires signatures and dates from the Agency/Owner PM, the Consultant PM, and the Agency Evaluator's Supervisor (if applicable), ensuring accountability and documentation of the evaluation process. This standardized assessment tool enables GDOT to maintain consistent performance records for consultants on on-call roadway design services contracts statewide and supports future contractor selection and retention decisions.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFQ 484_112326 On_Call Roadway Design Service.pdf | ||
| LAP Evaluation Form (2).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. | 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 .