Legacy Form.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- PE-48401-RFQ-2027-000000622
- 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 local projects. The form documents evaluations of consultant work across multiple performance categories and is completed by agency project managers or subject matter experts. The evaluation covers project descriptions, scope of work, project phases, and service dates, though specific project details are not populated in this template version.
The evaluation framework consists of two primary rating sections: Management (covering resource management, consultant independence, scope adherence, and communication) and Prosecution and Progress (addressing timeliness of deliverables, quality and completeness of work products, and budget compliance). Ratings are scored on a scale where 5 exceeds requirements, 3 meets requirements, and 1 does not meet requirements, with N/A as an option. The scoring methodology applies weighted calculations based on the number of ratings provided, with values ranging from 50 points for a single rating scored as 5, down to 0 points for scores of N/A. The form requires signatures from the Agency/Owner Project Manager, the Consultant Project Manager, and the Agency Evaluator's Supervisor, and includes space for justifications of scores and consultant responses to the evaluation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| LAP Evaluation Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFQ_484_092826 On_Call Engineering Support Se.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 .