Legacy Evaluation Form.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- PE-48401-RFQ-2026-000000551
- 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 engineering and design services projects. The form evaluates consultants across two primary rating categories: Management and Prosecution/Progress. The Management section assesses resource management, consultant independence, scope adherence, and communication and cooperation with agency staff. The Prosecution and Progress section evaluates timely completion of deliverables, quality and completeness of invoices and reports, and budget compliance. The evaluation uses a five-point scale where 5 indicates exceeds requirements, 3 indicates meets requirements, 1 indicates does not meet requirements, and N/A is available when criteria are not applicable. The form includes fields for the evaluation date, consultant name, project description, project phase, and service dates.
The scoring methodology applies weighted factors based on the number of ratings provided, with formulas that convert individual scores into weighted totals. Scores of 5 receive the highest weighted value, scores of 3 receive mid-range values, and scores of 1 receive the lowest values. The form requires justification from the Agency Project Manager or Subject Matter Expert for all scores and permits consultant response to evaluations. Sign-off sections are included for the Agency Project Manager, consultant Project Manager, and the Agency Evaluator's Supervisor. This evaluation tool is designed to document consultant performance for potential use in future contract award decisions and performance monitoring for ongoing engineering and design services projects in Georgia.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Consultant Scoring Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| LAP Evaluation Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFQ_484_042726 _ Batch _1_ 2026.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 .