design build contractor performance assessment revie · december 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109 design...

Draft

Design Build Contractor Performance Assessment Review

Prepared for

December 2016

Prepared by

December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109

Design Build Contractor Performance Assessment Review

Prepared for

Washington Department of Transportation Office of State Construction Engineer 310 Maple Park Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98501

Prepared by

Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com

CITATION

Parametrix. 2016. Design Build Contractor Performance Assessment Review. Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, WA.

December 2016.

Design Build Contractor Performance Assessment Review Washington Department of Transportation

December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... V

Scope ......................................................................................................................................................... v

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. v

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1

2. PEER RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................... 2

3. PERFORMANCE RATING APPROACHES ..................................................................................... 3

3.1 Rating Scales .................................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Federal Contractor Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 3

3.2.1 Federal CPARS Evaluation Categories .............................................................................. 4

3.3 Design‐Build Institute of America (DBIA) Standards ........................................................................ 4

3.4 Sound Transit ................................................................................................................................... 4

3.5 Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) .............................................................................. 5

3.6 Other Peer Agencies ........................................................................................................................ 5

4. WSDOT EXPERIENCE ................................................................................................................ 5

5. POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA .......................................................................................... 5

6. CONTRACTOR FEEDBACK APPROACHES ................................................................................. 10

6.1 Timeliness ...................................................................................................................................... 11

6.2 Expiration ....................................................................................................................................... 11

LIST OF TABLES

1 CPARS Scoring System...................................................................................................................... 3

2 Potential Performance Evaluation Criteria by Category .................................................................. 6

APPENDICES

A Federal CPARS and DBIA Best Practices

B Example Evaluation Criteria

C Sample Evaluation Forms

D Recent WSDOT DB Project Goals and Criteria

E Example Partnering Survey


December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109 iii

KEY TERMS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AGC Association of General Contractors

CPARS Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System

DB Design Build

DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

DBIA Design Build Institute of America

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity

FASA Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GC/CM General Contractor/Construction Manager

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

PCPRM Prime Contractor Performance Report Manual

PEs Professional Engineers

PLA Project Labor Agreement

PM Project Manage

RFQs Requests for Qualifications

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation


December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109 v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) current Prime Contractor Performance Manual (PCPRM) was developed in order to provide information needed to prequalify contractors for bidding on fully designed construction projects.

Design Build project delivery involves different considerations. Design Build contractors are relied on to provide leadership much earlier in the project life cycle, and the quality of contractor services, partnering, and response to unexpected problems is much more important. Selection panels need to be able to reliably assess a contractor’s past performance in these areas as a key indicator of their ability to perform to requirements and proposed enhancements on future projects. Additionally, projects and contractors would benefit if contractors received timely feedback from WSDOT during project performance in order to improve performance, while WSDOT could similarly benefit from contractor feedback.

Scope The purpose of this Performance Assessment Review was to assist WSDOT in formulating requirements and approach for contractor performance evaluation on Design Build projects. The scope of the effort included:

1. Review of published literature and practices of referenced organizations, including DBIA, FHWA, and peer organizations on lessons learned and best practices for Design Build (DB) contractor evaluation, including how performance evaluation is incorporated into contractor selections.

2. Compare how WSDOT process compares to those employed by other owners.

3. Evaluate if the existing PRPCM could be modified to address DB.

4. If a new method is recommended, identify the potential elements of a DB evaluation system.

5. Develop scoring rubrics that would be utilized in DB performance evaluation.

Methodology The methodologies used for developing this assessment report included the following:

Referenced Organizations: Literature was reviewed from the Design Build Institute of America (DBIA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal government’s primary system (Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System [CPARS]) and a variety of peer agencies. Lessons learned and best practices have been incorporated into the recommendations of this report.

How WSDOT’s Current Process Compares to Those Employed by Other Owners: The PCPRM is similar to those employed by other Departments of Transportation in that it evaluates performance against the Professional Engineer’s (PE’s) expectations on a variety of construction performance measures typically at the end of the project. Some owners such as Sound Transit have developed a more quantitative measurement system in the interest of bringing more consistency and objectivity to the process, but it is difficult to establish measures that can be applied equitably across all projects without adjusting for the degree of difficulty. The Federal government’s performance evaluation systems (in particular the CPARB system used by the Department of Defense) evaluates performance against contract requirements, which can


vi December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109

include proposal commitments exceeding minimum contract requirements and, therefore, well suited to the nature of Design Build.

The duration of time performance evaluations are held varies, but generally appears to be between 5 to 10 years. Where the source selection involves Design Build, the evaluation committees tend to accord less weight to older evaluations but appreciate being able to access older evaluations in order to afford firms without recent experience more opportunity to compete.

PCPRM Modification: The PCPRM was reviewed to determine if it could be modified to address Design Build, including developing commentary. The intended uses are quite different, in that the PCPRM is intended as a pass/fail threshold scoring to prequalify contractors to bid on classes of WSDOT projects. Design Build project selections require much more detail and different information such as:

Meeting contract requirements including proposed enhancements.

Design phase services performance.

Continuity and performance of key personnel.

Effectiveness of partnering and ability to respond to problems.

Amending the PCPRM would involve extensive modification that could diminish its effectiveness for its intended purpose, and for this reason development of a new performance evaluation system for Design Build projects is recommended

Potential Elements of a Design Build Evaluation System: The primary elements of the DB system would include:

Agreement at the outset of the project of which contract requirements will apply, the frequency of updates, evaluators, and to which team members the evaluation will apply.

Whether the contractor will be allowed to provide self‐evaluation input to the evaluation (frequently allowed and helpful to partnering) and feedback to the WSDOT project team on team performance.

Whether optional evaluation criteria will be used in addition to the basic or required elements.

Agreement on how interim evaluations will be used during the project to improve team performance. This can include roles and responsibilities for follow‐up actions.

Scoring Rubrics That Could be Utilized in Design Build Performance Evaluations: Evaluation systems were reviewed that are employed by peer organizations, with a focus on those organizations who use Design Build project delivery. Agency systems reviewed include the Federal government’s primary system (CPARS), the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and Sound Transit. All have undergone substantial revision in recent years to address performance under Design Build and other forms of alternative project delivery involving contractor involvement during design such as General Contractor/Construction Manager (GC/CM). Information was also reviewed on performance evaluation best practices as published by the Design Build Institute of America (DBIA).

Scoring methods have traditionally focused on how contractors met client expectations; however, expectations can involve too much subjectivity and vary significantly between evaluators, negating the value of evaluations. Some agencies have moved to systems that


December 2016 | 557‐1631‐109 vii

generate scores strictly on quantifiable performance data; however, over reliance on scoring could discourage the reporting and resolution of project issues.

The recommended rubric is the one used by the Federal government, which evaluates performance against contract requirements (which can include contractor proposed enhancements) and how well project issues were addressed. This provides more accountability for delivery of enhancements to contract requirements, and incentivizes open communications and resolution of project issues.

Evaluation criteria utilized in these systems were reviewed for potential applicability to a WSDOT Design Build contractor performance system. Interviews were conducted with WSDOT staff currently managing projects in order to understand which performance data is currently sought and used in contractor selection and performance evaluation. A full list of potential and recommended criteria is included in Table 2 in Section 5 of this report.

Evaluation Scoring: Evaluations generally cover the following major categories:

Contract Management:

Contract administration.

Subcontractor management.

Affirmative action/Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE).

Communication and cooperation.

Partnering.

Project Management:

Time management.

Cost management.

Technical Performance:

Quality management.

Safety management

Worksite management.

Design management.

Environmental and sustainability management.

Table 2 in Section 5 of this report identifies potential and recommended Design Build evaluation criteria. For the sake of consistency, certain of the criteria are identified as basic or high priority and others are designated as supplemental or optional.

Implementation: The new evaluation methodology should be incorporated into a new Design Build project manual, and circulated to experienced WSDOT and industry practitioners for feedback. Following completion, the new system should be tested with teams of varying experience levels to determine issues prior to being deployed across WSDOT. Training by experienced staff should be part of the implementation.


December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109 1

1. INTRODUCTION WSDOT has long maintained a system of evaluating contractor past performance for use in contractor prequalification. The present system, described in “Prime Contractor Performance Report Manual M 41‐101” was most recently updated in 2015 but does not address contractor services during design inherent in Design Build project delivery. The system relies on periodic reporting by the Project Engineer to assess whether the contractor’s performance met standards and expectations. The evaluations are utilized in conjunction with the contractor prequalification system to establish eligibility to bid on Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Design Bid Build projects. Other than limited use in establishing bidder responsibility and capabilities as part of qualification to bid, past performance plays little role in traditional Design Bid Build selections.

By contrast, alternative project delivery (including not only Design Build (DB) but also other forms of early contractor involvement such as General Contractor/Construction Manager [GC/CM]) typically utilizes a much more extensive contractor prequalification process. In fact, the preferred methods of contractor selection for alternative project delivery projects involve extensive consideration of contractor qualifications and past performance, with only a small number (usually three) of applicants advancing to the technical proposal stage. In practice, WSDOT DB selection teams typically seek to learn much more about past performance, including:

How well the contractor met contract commitments.

How the contractor responded to and corrected problems.

How well the contractor partnered with the owner’s team and project stakeholders.

Overall, how confident WSDOT can be that the contractor will deliver a successful project.

Since the Prime Contractor Performance Report Manual (PCPRM) system does not capture much of this information, in most cases Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) have requested proposers to self‐report performance data and provide a client contact to allow reported performance information to be verified. This requires a great deal of labor by evaluation teams to contact and verify the data. In some cases, staff have moved on and do not have access to records to verify the data. Additionally, memories can fade with time, making it difficult to gain an accurate picture of contractor performance.

Finally, if a system could be developed that identifies what constitutes strong performance, captures the data contemporaneously, and provides frequent two‐way feedback between WSDOT project teams and their DB contractor teams, the improvement in communications could strengthen project team alignment and performance.

WSDOT is not alone in this need. Over the past several decades, for example, Federal contracting and procurement has placed increased emphasis on the collection and use of past performance data. “Best Practices for Collecting and Using Current and Past Performance Information” (OMB, 2000) noted:

The 1994 Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA), signaled a “sea change” in Federal acquisition. FASA was signed into law by the President on October 13, 1994 (P.L. 103‐355). In FASA, Congress acknowledged that it is appropriate and relevant for the Government to consider a contractor’s past performance in evaluating whether that contractor should receive future work. Section 1091 of FASA states: “Past contract performance of an offeror is one of the relevant factors that a contracting official of an executive agency should consider in awarding a contract. It is appropriate for a contracting official to consider past contract performance of an offeror as an indicator of the likelihood that the offeror will successfully perform a contract to be awarded by that official.”


2 December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109

With the increased use of alternative project delivery, many other peer agencies have sought to strengthen their performance assessment programs.

The purpose of this analysis is to:

Describe typical WSDOT needs for prime contractor performance evaluation information used in conjunction with Design Build selections;

Identify and evaluate approaches developed by similar agencies for the evaluation and use of contractor past performance data, including feedback between the contractor and owner during projects to improve project team alignment and performance; and

Recommend the elements of a contractor past performance evaluation system for Design Build projects that can capture objective, reliable information on contractor past performance that will be useful in future Design Build project selections

2. PEER RESEARCH The effort for this report included the collection and review of information summarizing performance rating approaches utilized by similar agencies for Design Build and other alternative delivery methods characterized by contractor involvement in project design. The information evaluated included:

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Prime Contractor Performance Evaluation Form 734‐2469 – Updated in cooperation with AGC Oregon in 2013.

Sound Transit Project Control Policy and Procedure (PCP‐17) Consultant and Contractor Performance Evaluation – Updated in 2014 in response to a request by the State Auditor to have a more measurable set of criteria. Sound Transit utilizes both Design Build and GC/CM extensively.

Federal Ratings – The Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) and CPARS Construction Evaluation terms are the most widely used of the performance evaluation systems, and has become standard for the Department of Defense which predominantly uses Design Build project delivery.

Design Build Institute of America (DBIA) – Promulgates “Best Practices” guidelines, some of which are directly applicable to performance rating categories).

University of Washington – Utilizes a great deal of alternative project delivery, both Design Build and GC/CM.

Ada County (Idaho) Highway District Construction Contractor Evaluation Form.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have published reports with some relevant information relative to contractor performance evaluation, but no specific reports dealing with contractor past performance evaluation systems were found (Note: subject for future investigation).


December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109 3

3. PERFORMANCE RATING APPROACHES

3.1 Rating Scales There are several types of rating approaches in use today for WSDOT and peer agency reviews. These rating approaches generally consist of:

Subjective – The most common rating systems are based on the subjective opinions by the responsible agency official of contractor performance. These systems often include subcategory ratings of levels of satisfaction, and have the benefit of incorporating both the objective as well as the “feel” for the work. One of the challenges of this approach is that performance ratings may vary widely between different individuals, so successive evaluations of the same contractor by two different evaluators might be quite different. The variability raises questions of equity in treatment of contractor business partners, and makes it difficult to reliably use the information in future selections without a great deal of additional effort to normalize evaluation data by selection panels.

Quantitative – Some owners attempt to be more impartial by rating based on quantitative data such as using reported lost time injuries data (Experience Modification Rate) for scoring performance. The challenge is that the data often do not alone capture the full scope of the problem, and may discourage self‐reporting of problems that might lower scores. Additionally, raw data may not capture efforts to correct problems once discovered, an important element in contractor performance.

Hybrid – Some approaches, most notably the Federal systems exemplified by CPARS, evaluate performance against the standard of the contract, also providing credit for the timeliness and effectiveness of contractor efforts to correct the problem. In the case of Design Build projects, this has the advantage of being able to incorporate promises made in the proposal (if the proposal is incorporated into the contract). This combination of attributes is why this approach is recommended.

3.2 Federal Contractor Evaluation Beginning in the 1990s, past performance became an important part of contract acquisition for the world’s largest purchaser of design and construction.

The CPARS scoring system presented in Table 1 exemplifies the Hybrid approach noted above.

Table 1. CPARS Scoring System

Unsatisfactory (1). Performance does not meet contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely or cost effective manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub‐element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Marginal (2). Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub‐element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has submitted minimal corrective actions, if any. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Satisfactory (3). Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub‐element contains some minor problems for which proposed corrective actions taken by the contractor appear satisfactory, or completed corrective actions were satisfactory.

(Table Continues)


4 December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109

Table 1. CPARS Scoring System (Continued)

Very Good (4). Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some contract requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub‐element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Exceptional (5). Performance meets contract requirements and significantly exceeds contract requirements to the Government’s benefit. For example, the contractor implemented innovative or business process reengineering techniques, which resulted in added value to the Government. The contractual performance of the element or sub‐element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

3.2.1 Federal CPARS Evaluation Categories

The CPARS system was the result of decades of study and has been in use for the world’s largest customer for design and construction (including Design Build); by referencing the contract (including the proposal if included in the contract) it provides the following advantages:

It allows a range of project‐specific contractor obligations and performance to be assessed in a manner that has been agreed to in advance by both parties.

It allows corrective actions provided for under the contract to be assessed.

It requires all evaluators to reference the same performance standards, thereby providing greater consistency among evaluators for contractor feedback.

As a tool in future contract selections, it allows much better assessment of the confidence in the contractor’s performance in meeting contract requirements, and thereby is a more useful evaluation tool.

Finally, since the Federal government, in particular the Department of Defense who uses this system, is the largest purchaser of Design Build services in the world, this scoring method has been studied and tested extensively.

Further information on CPARS past performance evaluation criteria is presented in Appendix A.

3.3 Design‐Build Institute of America (DBIA) Standards DBIA has not, as of yet, published any guidance on best practices for contractor performance assessment. DBIA has, however, published reports on best practices recommendations for transportation projects that has some applicability to contractor performance assessment. Appendix A includes a summary of DBIA Best Practice literature in selected areas of past performance assessment.

3.4 Sound Transit Sound Transit’s ratings system is presented in Appendix B. The system was substantially updated in 2014 to respond to a request by the Washington State Auditor for objective and quantitative past performance data. The system is fairly quantitative, some categories require nearly perfect performance to receive a top score, and does not adjust for the degree of difficulty of meeting the requirements or of correcting problems. Nevertheless, the system shows a great deal of thought relative to evaluation criteria.


December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109 5

3.5 Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) ODOT collaborated with the Association of General Contractors (AGC) Oregon in 2013 to substantially revise the ODOT contractor past performance evaluation system. The guidance and form are presented in Appendix C. A number of the criteria could have merit for the WSDOT system. Of note, the ODOT system assigns a value of 0 to an average performance (i.e., each contractor begins at 0) then builds a positive or negative score. This approach is unorthodox and can probably function to send a message about unacceptable performance but may also engender controversy.

3.6 Other Peer Agencies Appendix C includes examples of contractor past performance evaluation systems of two other large Pacific Northwest public owners – Ada County (Idaho) Highway District and the University of Washington. These were not reviewed in detail but are included for reference.

4. WSDOT EXPERIENCE Recent Design Build RFQs (I‐5/SR 16 Interchange – Construct HOV Connections, I‐405 Hard Running Shoulders) were reviewed to identify project goals and selection criteria that could be related to or benefit from contractor past performance ratings; the most significant are included in Table 1, in the following section. Additionally, input was received from Omar Jepperson, Brenden Clarke, and staff from SR 520.

Comments from Omar Jepperson summarize the perspective of WSDOT DB project managers:

During evaluation of SOQ’s, we are looking at experience and performance. DBers do a pretty good job conveying their experience in the SOQ. We currently use reference checks as a means to get a read on recent performance. This works for local and international teams. It is time consuming and also as our program grows, references will get called very frequently with repetitive questions. There is some consistency risk.

Going forward, with a new performance evaluation process for DB, we will need to consider how we handle scoring teams with a WSDOT performance evaluation alongside teams who don’t have one yet (an issue during the ~5 year transition to the new system, then always an issue for a new team)

Currently, Design Build RFQs require proposers to submit project performance data for both WSDOT and non‐WSDOT projects; the “Form C” data questionnaire from the I‐5/SR 16 project is included in Appendix D for reference. Additional input should be sought from project teams to refine the list of criteria that would be most useful for future selections.

5. POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA Table 2 below presents an inventory of possible evaluation criteria by subject area compiled from peer agencies and recent WSDOT DB RFQs. Recommended minimum criteria are shown in blue font, with optional additional criteria (as appropriate to the project) shown in black font. Specific contract requirements and proposal commitments should be appended to each criteria (optimally prior to notice to proceed) to provide the specific performance criteria that would be the basis for evaluation.


6 December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109

Table 2. Potential Performance Evaluation Criteria by Category

Category Potential Criteria (Recommended) Comments

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

Contract Administration

Completeness and accuracy of contract documents, and compliance with agency and contract requirements

Compliance with contract terms, conditions, and specifications Verified by audit

Subcontractor Management

Success in integrating subcontractors, including small and small‐disadvantaged enterprises

Did they meet their goal?

Compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), the Project Labor Agreement (PLA), and other Diversity requirements – Did the Contractor comply with EEO, PLA, and other Diversity requirements? (5)

Subcontractors paid per contract requirements; Project Manager (PM) informed why payments not made (3)

Verified by audit

Certified payrolls submitted per contract requirements (3) Verified by audit

Contractor complied with wage payment requirements (3) Verified by audit

Change Management

Did the contractor identify changes appropriately? (5)

Cost proposals for change orders were consistently within reason (target: within 10% of the independent cost estimate) (5)

Did the Contractor monitor subcontractors to ensure compliance with contract terms and conditions? (5)

Affirmative Action

Contractor met DBE requirements (3)

Contractor met EEO requirements (3)

Contractor met apprentice hire requirements (3)

Communication and Cooperation

Timeliness and appropriateness of responses to owner requests

Did Contractor appropriately respond to Agency requests in a complete and timely manner? (5)

Effectiveness of relationships with the owner, the public, jurisdictional stakeholders, and other project consultants/contractors (5)

Did the Contractor’s PM and Project Superintendent create a cohesive team that successfully integrated proposed subcontractors? (5)

Partnering

The contractor embraced the partnering process and followed dispute resolution contract requirements; the performance of key Contractor staff (effectively partnered with owner; performance of key staff was exceptional) (5)

(Table Continues)


December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109 7

Table 2. Potential Performance Evaluation Criteria by Category (Continued)


Collaboration

Collaborating with a public agency owner to efficiently resolve issues at the project level in a timely and cost effective manner (2)

Issue Resolution

Issue Resolution: Provide details and an explanation for any dispute proceedings associated with disputes review board procedures, claims, arbitration, or litigation that stemmed from the projects identified in the narrative (2)

Contractor complies with contract requirements with raising and resolving disputes (3)

Contractor received Breach of Contract Letter for Material Breach; requires at a minimum meeting with the State Construction and Materials Engineer (3)

Public Communications

How effective was the Contractor’s relationship with the owner, the public, jurisdictional stakeholders, subcontractors, trade unions, and other project Consultants/Contractors? (5)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Did the Contractor PM and Project Superintendent monitor team performance, anticipate and resolve performance issues and establish contingencies for unforeseen issues, and successfully complete work as planned? (5)

Ensure the Project is managed and delivered in accordance with the contract requirements and ensure that the Design‐Builder meets or exceeds the Project goals (2)

Sanctions: For each project listed in the narrative, identify any violations, penalties, fines, or other damages assessed against a Major Participant resulting from permit non‐compliance. Describe the reason for the sanction(s) and total value assessed against the Major Participant on the project. (2)

Time Management

Project completed on time (3)

Identify any delays to Substantial Completion, Physical Completion, or interim project milestones. Describe the reason for the delay(s). (2)

Opportunity for self‐evaluation by the contractor

Were schedule objectives met? (5)

Did the Contractor maintain current schedules, effectively utilize resources, and monitor performance to schedule? (5)

Initial Schedule – Submitted ahead of preconstruction meeting, complete according to specifications (3)

Preparedness to address unforeseen issues

Schedule monitoring and reporting (as defined by the contract)

Schedule updates submitted per contract

Lookahead schedules submitted on time per contract (3)

Subcontractors consulted in preparation of baseline schedule (3) Useful, although difficult to define and evaluate

Meeting contract milestones

Schedule Risk Mitigation

(Table Continues)


8 December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109



Were the Contractor’s strategies for mitigating delays effective? (5)

Completion Schedule (1)

Cost Management

Completion of the project within budget

Were budget objectives met? (5) As defined by the proposal and contract

Change order management and administration Technical Performance

Construction Cost (1)

Cost proposals for change orders

Operation and Maintenance cost (1)

TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE

Quality Management

Quality Assurance of Deliverables

Implementing a successful quality assurance program on design‐build transportation projects (2)

Quality of A‐E by Discipline

Contract Administration ‐ (general conditions)

Quality Control Achievement

Quality of submittals/transmittals relative to industry, owner, and jurisdictional stakeholder standards

Were submittals/transmittals appropriately justified and assumptions and basis documented in accordance with industry, owner, and jurisdictional stakeholders’ standards? (5)

Quality Management – Conformance with standards of good workmanship

Did the Contractor conform to the standards of good workmanship and adhere to technical specifications? (5)

Responsiveness to correcting deficient work

Did the Contractor promptly identify report and correct deficient work? (5)

Did the Contractor appropriately inspect delivered materials and initial activities associated with discrete work elements and comply with testing and associated reporting requirements? (5)

Adequacy of inspections/testing

On‐site quality inspections routinely did not identify noncompliance/nonconformance issues (5)

As measured by NCI log

(Table Continues)


December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109 9



Accuracy of Redline Drawings: Did the Contractor’s shop drawings and redlines accurately depict modifications and/or changes? (5)

As defined by the contract

Quality of Materials/Systems (1)

Technical Solution (1)

Image/Character of Design (1)

Criteria: Were contract documents (e.g., Requests for Information, Proposals and Change Orders, insurance certificates, pay applications, required notifications, submittals, audit‐related information, closeout documents, etc.) received:

on time,

complete,

accurate and

include appropriate backup,

in accordance with agency and contract requirements? (5)

Did the Contractor comply with all general and special conditions and technical specifications? (5)

Safety

Project Lost Time Injury Rate:

Project Lost Time Injury Rate was lower than state average (5)

Contractor is safety minded, follows safe practices, responds to owner concerns (3)

Did the contractor maintain a clean worksite and perform measures (e.g., street sweeping, compliance with construction hours, etc.) for mitigating impacts on the community? (5)

OSHA visits resulted in no warnings/violations (3)

Safety reports filed on time and complete (3)

Safety program enforcement

Did the contractor enforce the safety program and correct deficiencies/violations? (5)

Did the contractor develop and successfully implement, monitor compliance, and accurately report in accordance with Health and Safety, Accident Prevention and Emergency Response Plan? (5)

Worksite Management

Superintendent available when needed, has good control of contractors, is knowledgeable of work, performs quality work throughout the project (3)

Traffic Management:

Traffic Control Plan – Contractor follows and maintains TCP and traffic control devices, assigns proper personnel to traffic control (3)

(Table Continues)


10 December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109



Practical Design

Did the contractor apply strategies, technologies, innovative ideas, and/or creative solutions that enhanced cost effectiveness, constructability, construction and operational safety, systems operation and maintenance, and environmental sustainability? (5)

Environmental Sustainability

Environmental Management

Designing and constructing project elements within constraints, such as time, physical space and/or weather (2)

Contractor met permitting requirements and environmental commitments (3)

Contractor met Erosion and Sediment Control requirements on the project (3)

Energy Conservation (1)

Environmental Sustainability (1)

Fee (1)

Financial Capacity (1)

Management Plan (1)

Sources:

(1) DBIA “Design Build Done Right” (2) WSDOT I‐405 HRS RFQ (3) ODOT‐AGC Working Paper (4) Federal CPARS (5) Sound Transit

6. CONTRACTOR FEEDBACK APPROACHES The goal should be to create a performance feedback loop where Design‐Builders know that their performance will be consistently rated and that will influence their ability to be shortlisted on future projects. Additionally, WSDOT project teams could benefit from timely two‐way exchange of information on shortfalls in project performance. This needs to be managed carefully to avoid interfering with partnering; however, project managers believe that open communication is crucial to strong team performance.

Some WSDOT projects have utilized contractor‐driven feedback tools, primarily quarterly surveys of both owner and contractor project team members. These projects have for the most part utilized online survey tools, and offer an opportunity to collect qualitative feedback from team members who may not otherwise be consulted. A recent report from the SR 520 Floating Bridge and Landings project is included in Appendix E.

Many contractors also prepare quarterly executive team reports in conjunction with partnering, and those efforts could be designed to provide data and evaluations consistent with project performance assessments, such as requesting team managers to fill out or discuss performance against project goals, evaluation criteria, and recovery plans. The feedback could be captured in meeting notes to provide annual or other periodic performance evaluations.


December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109 11

6.1 Timeliness Many evaluation systems call for annual evaluations; however, experience shows that it can be difficult to persuade busy project managers to take the time to complete the evaluations. Some agencies score their own project managers on whether they have completed their required evaluations. It is likely that if data were collected more frequently, as noted above, the task of drafting the initial review could be delegated to support staff and evaluations completed more frequently. Additionally, keeping the data requirements as concise as possible and attuned to the needs of future project managers may encourage managers to make it a priority.

To be most useful, evaluations should be completed at six months (capture startup and design performance); then at one year; then annually or at the completion of key milestones until complete.

6.2 Expiration Policies for the expiration of past performance data vary. Within the Federal government, past performance evaluations typically expire within five to seven years after the completion of the final project evaluation, depending on the agency and system. Other agencies drop or heavily discount evaluations at the seven to ten years mark. WSDOT DB project managers and Professional Engineers (PEs) report that they often discount any evaluation older than five years during selections, but with some flexibility to consider older evaluations if needed to bring more competitors into the mix.

Overall, since the majority of DB projects follow DBIA Best Practices and consider qualifications first, past performance is often supplemented a great deal with survey data such as the Form C example presented earlier, so the subject of when to delete old evaluations may be more for project selection teams to evaluate.

Appendix A

Federal CPARS and DBIA Best Practices

December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109 A‐1

Federal CPARS and DBIA Best Practices

The table below summarizes evaluation criteria from the Federal CPARS contractor performance evaluation system along with DBIA Best Practices guidance that could be relevant to a WSDOT Design Build contractor evaluation system.

CPARS and DBIA Transportation Best Practices Guidance

QUALITY MANAGEMENT CRITERIA

CPARS: Quality reflects the Contractor’s management of the quality control program, as well as the quality of the work itself. (i.e., Has a quality project been constructed?)

Describe things like the contractor’s:

Ability to maintain quality control

Testing performance

Implementation of an effective inspection process

Contractor quality control documentation

Identification and correction of deficient work

Reviews of materials and shop drawings

Use of unspecified materials

Your comments should support your rating. Your rating should be supported by documented facts. Include successes and failures. Note corrective actions taken.

DBIA: Achieve Quality. All project deliverables must meet the owner’s life cycle performance specifications. Quality must meet, in most cases exceed, a project delivered under the design‐bid‐build method.

SCHEDULE CRITERIA

CPARS: Assess the timeliness of the Contractor against the completion of the contract milestones and delivery schedule. Address what they did to contribute to or affect the schedule variance. Address the significance of the missed milestones. Note adverse actions, such as liquidated damages, issuance of Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, etc. Questions you might consider:

Is the contractor completing the project in a timely manner?

Did the contractor adequately schedule the work?

Has the contractor met administrative deadlines (i.e., submittals received timely?)

Has the contractor met milestone dates?

If the schedule slipped due to the contractor’s action/inaction, what efforts were made to correct this?

Have construction activities been completed in a timely manner?

Has the contractor submitted updated project schedules in a timely manner?

If liquidated damages apply, how much has been assessed (dollars)?

DBIA: Meet Schedule. The master schedule is tied directly to the owner’s business model and is driven by their revenue models, marketing plans, commitments to end users, and other promotions. Finish on or ahead of schedule!

MANAGEMENT CRITERIA

CPARS: Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to complete the contract. Consider timeliness, completeness, quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, timely identification of issues, focus on customer satisfaction, and timely award and management of subcontractors. Questions you might consider:

Is the contractor customer focused? What is the quality of interaction between the Government and the contractor? Is management reasonable and cooperative?

Did contractor’s management (on site and home office) exhibit the capacity to adequately plan, schedule, resource, organize, and otherwise manage the work? Did the contractor identify and apply adequate resources to meet schedule requirements? Did the contractor share the right information with the right people at the right time?

A‐2 December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109


Responsiveness: Assess the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, and proposal submittals.

Subcontract Management: Are subcontracts awarded timely? How well does contractor manage subcontractors? How early do they identify and address subcontract issues? Are subcontractors paid on time? Do they ensure subcontractors comply with labor and safety requirements?

If the contract has a substantial amount of government furnished property, how well did the contractor manage this property?

If the contract has a Key Personnel Clause, assess the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing (if necessary) key personnel?

COMMUNICATION CRITERIA

DBIA: Public Outreach. Public relations are critical to success. From project conception to project award to notice to proceed to the ribbon cutting through commissioning and throughout the project operational life, a fully informed public means stakeholders will assume some ownership of the success of the project.

*A factual detailed narrative is required (even for “Satisfactory” ratings). It must be clear and concise. This is where you list the facts that support your rating.

REGULATORY CRITERIA

Regulatory Rating (select one)

___ Not Applicable ___ Exceptional ___ Very Good ___ Satisfactory ___ Marginal ___ Unsatisfactory

Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract relating to regulations and codes. Consider financial, environmental, safety, labor, and other regulations or laws. Questions you might consider:

Has the contractor complied with reporting requirements found in various FAR clauses?

Has the contractor complied with safety requirements? Have they implemented an effective safety program?

Has the contractor complied with labor laws?

Has the contractor complied with hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data?

Has the contractor complied with Environmental requirements?

Has the contractor complied with EEO?

Has the contractor complied with combating human trafficking?

COST

DBIA: On Budget.

Regardless of contract form, the total cost of the project must not exceed the owner’s budget.

Capital cost and future operating and maintenance costs must also meet the owner’s objectives and business model.

Build to budget!

UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS (If the contract has a subcontracting plan, complete this section; otherwise, check “N/A”.)

___ Not Applicable ___ Exceptional ___ Very Good ___ Satisfactory ___ Marginal ___ Unsatisfactory

OTHER CRITERIA

As‐built Assets.

After commissioning, owners or their contract operator need as‐built project deliverables that are ready for integration into their asset management systems.

December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109 A‐3


DBIA 2016 UPDATE

“The design‐builder should clearly, thoroughly and expeditiously advise the owner about any issues that might impact the contract price or schedule, as this will, among other things, enable the owner to make an informed decision as to how to address such issues.”

a. The owner and design‐builder should acknowledge the significant level of effort required to manage the development and review of the design and, consequently: (a) dedicate sufficient resources to foster a collaborative environment for this work; and (b) mutually develop a realistic design development plan that efficiently engages the owner and key members of the design‐builder’s team (e.g., designer(s)‐of‐record and key subcontractors) in purposeful meetings.

b. The owner and design‐builder should agree upon clear, realistic, and expeditious submittal and review/approval processes that are in harmony with the parties’ schedule and other project‐specific goals.

c. The design‐builder should ensure that design advancement and changes to the contract documents are clearly, thoroughly, and contemporaneously documented, and that there is a clear understanding as to when the owner is integrated into the decision making process for and notified of such advancement and changes.

d. The design‐builder and its team should: (a) establish a trend system early in the design development process to identify, track, and evaluate any potential changes before they adversely impact the project’s cost or schedule; (b) clearly, thoroughly, and contemporaneously communicate to the owner the information derived from the trend system; and (c) maintain the trend system throughout the construction process until it is no longer needed.

e. The design‐builder should identify early action items that will reduce the potential for future delays, including: (a) identifying challenging ROW issues; (b) ordering long lead items; (c) expediting geotechnical and utility investigations; and (d) developing relationships with utility owners and other key stakeholders.

SUBCONTRACTORS

CPARS: Key subcontractors, DUNS number and work performed (complete for subcontractors performing more than 25% of the project work; otherwise leave blank)

COMPLEXITY

CPARS: Complexity (check one)

___ High (Highly skilled personnel, stringent tolerance limits, high degree of management effort required, could involve new technology)

___ Medium (moderately complex, uses proven methods/means, moderate tolerance in specs, moderate management effort required)

___ Low (routine, not complex, simple contract requirements, does not require highly skilled labor, low management effort required)

COST INFORMATION

CPARS:

Dollar Values

Award amount:

Final amount: (final evaluation only)

Current Amount: (interim evaluation only)

CONTRACT DATES

CPARS:

Award date:

Final fixed completion date:

Actual completion date: (If terminated, use the date the termination became effective)

A‐4 December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109


TERMINATION

CPARS:

Was this project terminated? ___ no

___ yes, for convenience

___ yes, for default

___ yes, for cause

EVALUATION TYPE

CPARS: Evaluation type: (check one)

___ Final ___ Interim (Percent complete_____) ___ Addendum

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSED

CPARS: Period of performance being assessed:

From: ___________________ To:__________________

RECOMMENDATIONS

CPARS: Given what I know today about the contractor’s ability to perform in accordance with this contract or order’s most significant requirements, I (check one)

___ would ___ not recommend them for similar requirements in the future.

For Official Use ONLY/ Source Selection Information (Confidential) – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 and 42.1503 / For Official Use ONLY

CPARS Construction Evaluation Form

Instructions are in RED text


Contract Number: DTFH70___________ Task Order No:__________

Name of CO who signed the contract on page A-3:____________________

Contractor Information

Contractor Name/Address:

DUNS Number:

Contract Information Evaluation type: (check one) _Final _Interim (Percent complete_____) _Addendum

Period of performance being assessed: From: To:

Project location: (ex: Approximately 25 miles NE of Kalispell, Montana)

County:

Client Agency:

Contract Dates Award date: Final fixed completion date: Actual completion date: (If terminated, use the date the termination became effective)

Dollar Values Award amount: Final amount: (final eval only) Current Amount: (interim eval only)

Complexity (check one) _High (Highly skilled personnel, stringent tolerance limits, high degree of management effort required, could involve new technology)

_Medium (moderately complex, uses proven methods/means, moderate tolerance in specs, moderate management effort required) _Low (routine, not complex, simple contract requirements, does not require highly skilled labor, low management effort required)

Was this project terminated? _no _yes, for convenience _yes, for default _yes, for cause

To be completed by Acquisition Product Service Code: NAICS:

initiator:[email protected];wfState:distributed;wfType:email;workflowId:f9305282965ddf408bb32ad06a16e886

Julee.K.McTaggart

Typewritten Text

Adding comments; not done

Julee.K.McTaggart

Typewritten Text

Julee.K.McTaggart

Typewritten Text





Contract Type _Firm-fixed Price _Firm-fixed price with incentives SCR _Other (explain)

Miscellaneous Information Project No:

Project Name:

Project length:

Work performed under this contract:

Key subcontractors, DUNS number and work performed (complete for subcontractors performing more than 25% of the project work; otherwise leave blank)

Subcontractor name: DUNS: Work performed:

Subcontractor name: DUNS: Work performed:

This contract (check one) __does __does not include a subcontracting plan.

To be completed by Acquisition Competition Type: Contract Type:

(Completed by Acquisition) Competition Type: Contract Type:





Ratings Quality Rating: (select one)

_Not Applicable _Exceptional _Very Good _Satisfactory _Marginal _Unsatisfactory

Quality reflects the Contractor’s management of the quality control program, as well as the quality of the work itself. (i.e. Has a quality project been constructed?) Describe things like the contractor’s:

• Ability to maintain quality control • Testing performance • Implementation of an effective inspection process • Contractor quality control documentation • Identification and correction of deficient work • Reviews of materials and shop drawings • Use of unspecified materials

Your comments should support your rating. Your rating should be supported by documented facts. Include successes and failures. Note corrective actions taken. Comments:* (required) [24,000 character limit]

Schedule Rating: (select one)


Assess the timeliness of the Contractor against the completion of the contract milestones and delivery schedule. Address what they did to contribute to or affect the schedule variance. Address the significance of the missed milestones. Note adverse actions, such as liquidated damages, issuance of Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, etc. Questions you might consider:

• Is the contractor completing the project in a timely manner? • Did the contractor adequately schedule the work? • Has the contractor met administrative deadlines (i.e. submittals received timely?) • Has the contractor met milestone dates? • If the schedule slipped due the contractor’s action/inaction, what efforts were made to correct this? • Have construction activities been completed in a timely manner? • Has the contractor submitted updated project schedules in a timely manner? • If liquidated damages apply, how much has been assessed (dollars)?

Comments:* (required) [24,000 character limit]

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

Definition of EXCEPTIONAL: Performance meets contractual requirements & exceeds many to the Govts's benefit. Performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which contractor's corrective actions were highly effective. NOTE: To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events & state how they were of benefit to the Gov't. A signgular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that is alone constitutes an Exception rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

Definition of VERY GOOD: Performance meets contractual requirements & exceeds some to the Govt's benefit. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. NOTE: To justify a VERY GOOD rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

Definition of SATISFACTORY: Performance meets contractual requirements. Performance contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. NOTE: To justify a SATISFACTORY rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than SATISFACTORY solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

Definition of MARGINAL: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. Performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. NOTE: To justify MARGINAL performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Govt. A MARGINAL rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the deficiency.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

Definition of UNSATISFACTORY: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements & recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Performance contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. NOTE: To justify an UNSATISFACTORY rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming & state how it impacted the Govt. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an Unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

The rating definitions and notes are included in the comments boxes found here. These definitions and notes apply to ALL rating categories, EXCEPT the small business utilization category.





Cost Control Rating: (not applicable to firm-fixed price contracts)

X Not Applicable _Exceptional _Very Good _Satisfactory _Marginal _Unsatisfactory

Management Rating: (select one)


Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to complete the contract. Consider timeliness, completeness, quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, Contractor’s history of reasonable & cooperative behavior, timely identification of issues, focus on customer satisfaction, and timely award & management of subcontractors. Questions you might consider:

• Is the contractor customer focused? What is the quality of interaction between the Government and the contractor? Is management reasonable and cooperative?

• Did contractor’s management (onsite and home office) exhibit the capacity to adequately plan, schedule, resource, organize, and otherwise manage the work. Did the contractor identify and apply adequate resources to meet schedule requirements? Did the contractor share the right information with the right people at the right time?

• Responsiveness: Assess the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, and proposal submittals.

• Subcontract Management: Are subcontracts awarded timely? How well does contractor manage subcontractors? How early do they identify and address subcontract issues? Are subcontractors paid on time? Do they ensure subcontractors comply with labor and safety requirements?

• If the contract has a substantial amount of government furnished property, how well did the contractor manage this property? • If the contract has a Key Personnel Clause (1252.237-73), assess the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting,

and replacing (if necessary) key personnel? Comments:* (required) [24,000 character limit]





Regulatory Rating (select one)


Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract relating to regulations and codes. Consider financial, environmental, safety, labor, and other regulations or laws. Questions you might consider:

• Has the contractor complied with reporting requirements found in various FAR clauses? • Has the contractor complied with safety requirements? Have they implemented an effective safety program? • Has the contractor complied with labor laws? • Has the contractor complied with hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data? • Has the contractor complied with Environmental requirements? • Has the contractor complied with EEO? • Has the contractor complied with combating human trafficking?

Comments:* (required) [24,000 character limit]

(Completed by Acquisition) Utilization of Small Business (If the contract has a subcontracting plan, complete this section; otherwise, check “N/A”.) _Not Applicable _Exceptional _Very Good _Satisfactory _Marginal _Unsatisfactory Comments* (required) [24,000 character limit]

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

Definition of EXCEPTIONAL: Exceeded all subcontracting goals. Had exceptional success with initiatives to assist, promote & utilize small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB) & service disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB). Complied with clause 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Went above & beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan & other small business requirements in the contract. Completed/submitted eSRS Individual Subcontract Repts and/or Sum Subcontract Repts in an accurate & timely manner.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

NOTE: To justify an EXCEPTIONAL rating, identify multiple significant events & state how they were a benefit to small business utilization. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it constitutes an Exceptional rating. Small businesses should be given meaningful & innovative work, directly related to the contract, & opportunities should not be limited to indirect work. Also, there should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

Definition for VERY GOOD: Met all of the subcontracting goals. Had significant success with initiatives to assist, promote & utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB & SDVOSB. Complied with clause 52.219-8. Met or exceeded any other small business contract requirements, including the use of small business in mission critical aspects of the program. Endeavored to go above/beyond the requirements of the subcontracting plan. Completed/submitted eSRS Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate/timely manner.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

NOTE: To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how they were a benefit to small business utilization. Small businesses should be given meaningful and innovative opportunities to participate as subcontractors for work directly related to the contract, and opportunities should not be limited to indirect work such as cleaning offices, supplies, landscaping, etc. There should be no significant weaknesses identified.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

Definition of SATISFACTORY: Demonstrated a good faith effort to meet the subcontracting goals in the various socio-economic categories for the current period. Complied with FAR 52.219-8. Met any other small business participation requirements included in the contract. Fulfilled the requirements of the subcontracting plan included in the contract. Completed and submitted eSRS Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

NOTE: To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor has addressed or taken corrective action. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

Definition of MARGINAL: Deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements. Deficient in complying with clause 52.219-8, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract. Did not submit eSRS Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do so. Required a corrective action plan.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

NOTE: To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and how it impacted small business utilization. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the actions taken by the government that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

Definition of UNSATISFACTORY: Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract. Did not submit eSRS Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan.

Julee.K.McTaggart

Sticky Note

NOTE: To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted small business utilization. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an Unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the actions taken by the government to notify the contractor of the deficiencies. When an Unsatisfactory rating is justified, the contracting officer must consider whether the contractor made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the subcontracting plan required by clause 52.219-9 and follow the procedures outlined in clause 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan.





Other Areas Rating (optional)

Specify additional evaluation areas that are unique to this contract or that were not captured elsewhere. Name of area_________________________________________ (Select one) _Not Applicable _Exceptional _Very Good _Satisfactory _Marginal _Unsatisfactory

Name of area_________________________________________ (Select one) _Not Applicable _Exceptional _Very Good _Satisfactory _Marginal _Unsatisfactory

Name of area_________________________________________ (Select one) _Not Applicable _Exceptional _Very Good _Satisfactory _Marginal _Unsatisfactory

Comments:* (If you add evaluation areas in this section, comments are required) [24,000 character limit]

Recommendation:

Given what I know today about the contractor's ability to perform in accordance with this contract or order's most significant requirements, I (check one) __would __would not recommend them for similar requirements in the future.

Comments:* Use this area for general comments not directly related to an evaluation area. [24,000 character limit]





Signatures Assessing Official Info

Name: Signature__________________________ Title: Project Engineer Date___________________

Evaluation Reviewed by

Name: Signature__________________________ Title: Construction Operations Engineer Date___________________ Phone: Second Level Review Name: Signature__________________________ Title: Contracting Officer Date___________________

Appendix B

Example Evaluation Criteria

Attachment A

Project Control Policy and Procedure (PCPP-17)

Consultant and Contractor Performance Evaluation

Summary of Changes

Reason for Revision:

The Consultant Evaluation program was reviewed during the State Auditor's Office 2012 Performance

Audit. Recommendations of the auditor were to more clearly define rating criteria to reduce the amount of

subjectivity involved in the review process and to consider expanding the evaluation program to

construction Contractors. The need to do so becomes more apparent as we embrace the use of

alternative contracting strategies whereby selection is not determined by the lowest responsible bid.

Major Changes:

• Updates to reflect use of the revised consultant evaluation form placed in use in 2013

• Incorporation of new standardized Consultant evaluation categories and new rating levels

• Addition of requirements, criteria and procedures for performing Contractor Evaluations

• New form for evaluating Contractors

SEE Form library for most current version of Forms

7SOUNDTRANSIT

Deputy Executive Director

Project Control & VE

2: 5 . LvCA _s

Director of Procurement & Contracts

PROJECT CONTROL

POLICIES & PROCEDURES PCPP-17

Rev. 2

Consultant Contractor

Performance Evaluation

Original Release Date: 10/12/10

Current Revision Date: 2/04/2014

1.0 PURPOSE

Sound Transit is responsible for ensuring that contracts are awarded to qualified and capable consultants and contractors. This policy outlines formal protocols for evaluating consultants' and contractors' performance. The implementation of a formal evaluation program establishes consistent, objective, fair and accountable methods for evaluating performance and is intended to enhance project delivery. It also periodically provides an opportunity for formal, proactive, constructive feedback and two-way communication between Sound Transit and the consultant/contractor during project delivery, strengthening the working relationship and potentially enhancing performance on current and future contracts.

2.0 POLICY

Project/Contract managers, Project Directors, Construction Managers or their designees from the Design, Engineering and Construction Management (DECM) and the Planning, Environment and Project Development (PEPD) departments will periodically evaluate performance of prime consultants/contractors. The frequency of the evaluations will be in accordance with Section 5.2.

3.0 SCOPE

This policy applies to all architecture/engi neering (A&E), professional services and capital construction contracts greater than $1,000,000 in value awarded by the DECM and PEPD departments, excluding intergovernmental agreements.

4.0 REFERENCES

(1) Sound Transit Resolution No. 78-2

(2) Sound Transit Administrative Policy # 5 - Procurement and Disbursement Policy

Page 1 of 32

Original Release: 10/12/10

Rev. 02 Release: 02/04/14

PROJECT CONTROL POLICY & PROCEDURES

PCPP-17 Consultant Contractor Performance Evaluation

Page 2 of 32

(3) RCW 40.14 – Preservation & Destruction of Public Records

(4) Sound Transit Administrative Policy # 8 - Access to Public Records.

(5) Sound Transit Administrative Policy # 23 – Agency Records Management

(6) Sound Transit Administrative Policy # 24 – Capital Project Execution and Delivery–

Phase Gate

(7) Sound Transit Administrative Policy # 28 – Project Closeout Administrative and Financial

(8) Procurement and Contract Administration Manual

5.1 IMPLEMENTATION

5.2 Consultant Performance Evaluation

5.2.1 The Consultant Performance Evaluation Program Procedures (see Exhibit PCPP-17-1) establish criteria for evaluating a Consultant’s performance relative to contract administration, communication and cooperation, project management and technical performance.

5.2.2 Consultant Performance Reports (Exhibit PCPP-17-2) shall be prepared by the Project/Contract Manager, Project Director or their designee at:

Any time deemed necessary by the Project/Contract Manager or Project Director;

For contracts involving a single facility design – at contract specific milestones

(e.g., 30%, 60%, 90% design completion and following design support during

construction);

For contracts involving multiple facility designs – following completion of six months

of scheduled level of effort and annually thereafter;

For Construction Management contracts – at completion of 10% of construction

and following substantial completion of construction;

Planning contracts – at completion of major deliverables such as Alternatives

Analyses or a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS);

For non-design related on-call contracts, e.g., environmental permitting, project

review services, etc., – following six months of performance and annually

thereafter;

For Design/Build Contracts following completion of design phase;

For General Contractor/Construction Manager contracts following preconstruction

services;

Prior to Board action to amend the contract or exercise contract options.

The Project/Contract Manager or Project Director will rate a consultant’s performance in the following categories:





Page 3 of 32

(1 Contract Administration

(2 Communication and Cooperation

(3 Project Management

(4 Technical Performance

Specific measures for each category are rated numerically if applicable, narrative comments on each measure may also be provided.

5.2.3 Narratives will be based on contract performance during the period of evaluation including references to applicable documents.

5.2.4 Each Consultant Performance Report will be signed by the Project/Contract Manager, Project Director or designee and approved by the applicable design, project or construction division director. Following approval, the report will be reviewed with the Consultant in accordance with Section 6.0. The report may be modified following discussions with the Consultant to clarify any ambiguities or misrepresentations. The report will not be final until discussions with the Consultant are complete.

5.2.5 All completed Consultant Performance Reports will be delivered to the DECM Chief of Staff or designee and the Procurement and Contracts Division (Contracts). Contracts will be responsible for maintaining the reports in accordance with the Agency Records Management Policy. The reports may be used in future procurements and for partnering and project delivery improvement efforts.

5.3 Contractor Performance Evaluation

5.3.1 The Contractor Performance Evaluation Program Procedures (see Exhibit PCPP-17-3) establish criteria for evaluating a Contractor’s performance relative to contract administration, communication and cooperation, project management and technical performance,

5.3.2 Contractor Performance Reports (Exhibit PCPP-17-4) shall be prepared by the Sound Transit Construction Manager or their designee upon substantial completion of construction but can be performed more frequently at the discretion of the Construction Manager.

The Construction Manager will rate a contractor’s performance in the following categories:

(1 Contract Administration

(2 Communication and Cooperation

(3 Project Management

(4 Technical Performance

Specific measures for each category are rated numerically if applicable, narrative comments on each measure may also be provided.





Page 4 of 32

5.3.3 Narratives will be based on contract performance during the period of evaluation including references to applicable documents.

5.3.4 Each Contractor Performance Report will be signed by the Construction Manager or designee and approved by the construction management division director. Following approval, the report will be reviewed with the Contractor in accordance with Section 6.0. The report may be modified following discussions with the Contractor to clarify any ambiguities or misrepresentations. The report will not be final until discussions with the Contractor are complete.

5.3.5 All completed Contractor Performance Reports will be delivered to the DECM Chief of Staff or designee and the Procurement and Contracts Division (Contracts). Contracts will be responsible for maintaining the reports in accordance with the Agency Records Management Policy. The reports may be used in future procurements and for partnering and project delivery improvement efforts.

6.0 NOTICE AND REVIEW

6.1 Notice. A copy of each Performance Report is to be delivered and discussed with the

Consultant/Contractor within thirty (30) calendar days of completion. The original report will be forwarded to Contracts following discussions with the Consultant/Contractor.

6.2 Review. A Consultant/Contractor that disputes a Performance Report may request

review by the Project Director responsible for the contract. The Consultant’s request must be in writing and provided to the Project Director within thirty (30) calendar days of the discussion of the report with the Consultant/Contractor. The request must also specifically identify the basis for the dispute.

6.3 The Project Director will review the Performance Report with appropriate agency staff. A

summary of findings will be issued that affirms or modifies all or any part of the report. A copy of the summary of findings will be delivered to the Consultant/Contractor.

6.4 Request for Follow-up Evaluation. Following the review by the Project Director, the

Consultant/Contractor may request a follow-up evaluation. The schedule for such an evaluation will be determined by the Project/Construction/Contract Manager or Project Director.

7.0 RELEASE OF INFORMATION

Performance Reports are subject to disclosure to other government agencies and the public. Because the reports and overall evaluations may be used by other entities as a basis for contract award, care is to be taken to provide only accurate, complete, and current information in the reports.





Page 5 of 32

7.1 Performance Reports may only be released when: The Report becomes final as set forth in Section 5.1.4 and 5.2.4 of these instructions; or Sound Transit has relied upon the report in taking corrective action with the Consultant/Contractor.

7.2 Termination for Default and Pending Litigation. The Performance Report may be

used in determining whether to terminate a contract for default in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. In the event that a Consultant/Contractor commences suit against Sound Transit for contract termination, that Performance Report shall not be released without approval of Agency General Counsel.

7.3 Intergovernmental Cooperation. All requests for Consultant/Contractor references

from agencies of foreign, federal, state, or local governments will be referred to the Director of Procurement and Contracts, or designee. If such a request is honored, the requesting agency will be provided copies of all of the relevant Performance reports and associated written objections filed by the Consultant/Contractor.

8.0 EXHIBITS

Exhibit PCPP-17-1 – Consultant Performance Evaluation Program Procedures

Exhibit PCPP-17-2 – Consultant Performance Report

Exhibit PCPP-17-3 – Contractor Performance Evaluation Program

Exhibit PCPP-17-4 – Contractor Performance Report





Page 6 of 32

EXHIBIT PCPP-17-1

CONSULTANT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM PROCEDURES

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of the Consultant Performance Evaluation program is to:

Assess whether consultants possess the qualifications, capacity, and support systems to

successfully complete a contract in accordance with contract terms and conditions.

Provide Sound Transit with a basis for determining a consultant’s capacity, capability

and expertise for contract performance.

Recognize consultants for exceptional contract performance.

Provide an opportunity for formal proactive, constructive feedback and two-way

communication periodically during project delivery so that adjustments may be made as

needed.

Encourage communications for better working relationships between Sound Transit and

consultants.

Provide a history and an assessment of a consultant’s performance for use in potential

contract disputes, arbitration, mediation and/or legal proceedings.

The consultant performance evaluation program is not intended to determine whether a Consultant has breached a contract with Sound Transit.

For purposes of the consultant performance evaluation program, Sound Transit will evaluate performance in the following areas:



Project Management

Technical, Performance.

2.1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

2.2 Performance Evaluation Criteria

Consultants will be evaluated on the following areas of performance. The evaluator may also review the consultant’s performance in contract-specific areas.


Completeness and accuracy of contract documents and compliance with Sound Transit requirements





Page 7 of 32

Compliance with contract terms and conditions

Adequacy of resources assigned to the project

Adherence to Agency and jurisdictional stakeholder requirements for performing additional work

Completeness, accuracy and timeliness of invoices and progress reports


Timeliness and appropriateness of responses to Agency requests

Effectiveness of relationships with Sound Transit, the public, jurisdictional stakeholders and other project consultants/contractors

Project Management

Ability to foster a cohesive team

Success in integrating subcontractors, including small and small-disadvantaged enterprises

Monitoring and reporting on team performance

Resolution of performance issues


Completion of the work scope on time and within budget

Application of project management “best practices”

Ensuring technical capacity and competency

Technical Performance

Quality of deliverables relative to industry, Sound Transit and jurisdictional stakeholder standards

Application of strategies, technologies, innovative ideas and/or creative solutions to enhance cost effectiveness, constructability, construction and operational safety, systems operation and maintenance and environmental sustainability

3.0 PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Performance is rated numerically from one (1) to four (4), with a rating of (4) indicative of meeting all the requirements specified in the performance area and a rating of (1) indicative of not meeting those requirements. In addition narrative comments are required for ratings of (2) or below. A “N/A” level is used only when the Consultant did not have direct or indirect responsibility for performance. An average score is determined and documented based on the ratings for the applicable performance areas.

4.1 PERFORMANCE REPORTS

The Consultant Performance Report template is available on the Controlled Documents SharePoint site (Controlled Documents) and has been developed with check boxes to





Page 8 of 32

allow completion electronically. The performance reports shall be completed in accordance with the Consultant/Contractor Performance Evaluation Policy.





Page 9 of 32

EXHIBIT PCPP-17- 2 (Example – Current Version in Form Library)

Consultant Performance Report

act ID

Consultant Details

Consultant

Consultant’s Representative

Name

Position

Tel

Email

Key Personnel

Team Members (Sub consultants)

* Insert/delete rows as needed

Subconsultant(s)

Agency Contacts


Department & Division

Project/Contract Manager

Contract Specialist

Project Control Lead * Insert/delete rows as needed

CONTRACT

CONTRACT DETAILS Contr

#

Contract Title

Original Contract Value $ Value Value of all COs $ Value

Current Contract Value $ Value Number of COs

Date of Contract / /20 Original Date for Completion / /20

Revised Date f or Completion / /20

of 32





Reporting Period

Report Date Percent complete %

□ Contract Amendment

□ Milestone Specify:

Report Reason □ Completion

□ Termination □ Other Specify:

Small/Disadvantaged Business Utilization

Business Enterprise Goal Performance

Small Business

Disadvantaged Business

of 32

Performance Assessment

1. Contract Administration

A. Were contract documents complete, accurate and in accordance with Sound Transit requirements (e.g., cost proposals, insurance certificates, key personnel changes, audit related information, closeout documents etc.)?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Documents consistently incomplete or late; major revisions needed most of the time 2. Documents frequently incomplete or late; major revisions needed over 50% of the time 3. Documents complete and on-time; minor revisions needed 4. Document consistently complete and on-time

B. Did the Consultant comply with contract terms and conditions, only perform authorized work and meet requirements for labor rate and overhead adjustments, invoicing, prompt payment of subcontractors, progress reporting, S/DBE goals, and change order processes?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Consultant rarely followed contract terms and conditions 2. Consultant followed contract terms and conditions only 25% of the time 3. Consultant followed contract terms and conditions the majority of the time 4. Consultant consistently followed contract terms and conditions

C. Were invoices and progress reports prepared in accordance with Agency requirements and include backup documentation to substantiate work efforts?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4. ☐

1. Invoices and progress reports did not meet Agency requirements or include backup documentation

2. Invoices and progress reports inconsistently met Agency requirements and included backup documentation

3. Invoices and progress reports usually met Agency requirements and included backup documentation

4. Invoices and progress reports always met Agency requirements and included backup documentation

2. Communication and Cooperation

A. Did consultant appropriately respond to Agency requests in a complete and timely

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

of 32

PROJECT CONTROL POLICY & PROCEDURES Original Release: 10/12/10

Rev. 02 Release: 02/04/14 P CPP-17 Consultant Contractor Performance Evaluation

manner?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Poor correspondence, communications and responses to requests; often does not return phone calls or respond to e mail requests

2. Correspondence, communications and responses to requests are complete and prompt less than half of the time

3. Correspondence, communications are complete and responses are timely the majority of the time

4. Correspondence and communications are complete and responses are always timely

B. How effective was the Consultant’s relationship with Sound Transit, the public, jurisdictional stakeholders and other project consultants/contractors?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Interacts poorly with project constituencies; is not receptive to differing opinions/suggestions

2. Negatively interacts with most project constituencies; is seldom open to differing opinions /suggestions

3. Majority of interactions with project constituencies are positive; is receptive to differing opinions/suggestions

4. Exceptional rapport with all project constituencies; appropriately considers differing opinions/suggestions

3. Project Management

A. Did the consultant project manager (PM) create a cohesive team that successfully integrated subcontractors, including small and small-disadvantaged enterprises?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Subcontractors proposed by the consultant were not effectively integrated into the project team

2. Some subcontractors were effectively integrated into the project team; limited efforts to meet diversity goals

3. All subcontractors were integrated into project team’ diversity goals were unmet. 4. All subcontractors were effectively integrated into project team and diversity goals were

met

B. Did the consultant project manager monitor team performance, anticipate and resolve performance issues and establish contingencies for unforeseen issues to successfully complete work as planned?

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

of 32



N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. PM does not monitor team performance, did not proactively address performance issues and was unable to satisfactorily address unforeseen issues

2. PM monitored team performance on a limited basis, addressed performance issues only when made aware of them by Sound Transit and satisfactorily addressed some unforeseen issues

3. PM usually monitored of team performance and proactively addressed most performance issues, and satisfactorily addressed most unforeseen issues

4. PM always monitored of team performance, proactively addressed all performance issues and satisfactorily addressed all unforeseen issues

C. Were earned value management and other project management “best practices” used to monitor and report on scope, schedule and budget performance?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Earned value management and other “best practices” were not used 2. Earned value management and other “best practices” were not accurately or

appropriately used 3. Earned value management and other “best practices” were used much of the time 4. Earned value management and other project management “best practices” were

consistently used

D. Were budget objectives met?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Underestimated/overestimated level of effort necessary to complete scope; CPI 0.85 or less /greater than 1.2

2. Underestimated/overestimated level of effort necessary to complete scope; CPI below 0.90/above 1.15

3. Underestimated/overestimated level of effort necessary to complete scope; CPI no less than 0.95/above 1.10

4. Estimated appropriate level of effort to complete scope; CPI less than 1.1

E. Were schedule objectives met?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Did not meet schedule milestones; SPI consistently below 0.95 2. Met some schedule milestones; SPI trends below 0.95 3. Met most schedule milestones; SPI consistently above 0.95 4. Met all schedule milestones; SPI consistently above 0.95

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

of 32

Comments:



F. Were the staffing level, availability and competency appropriate to meet scope and schedule objectives?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Staffing level, availability and competency were not appropriate for meeting all scope and schedule objectives

2. Staffing level, availability and competency were appropriate for meeting some scope and schedule objectives

3. Staffing level, availability and competency were appropriate for meeting most scope and schedule objectives

4. Staffing level, availability and competency were appropriate for meeting all scope and schedule objectives

4. Technical Performance

A. Were deliverables appropriately justified and assumptions, strategies and basis of design(s) documented in accordance with industry, Sound Transit and jurisdictional stakeholders’ standards?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Consultant deliverables consistently did not meet applicable standards and requirements 2. Some consultant deliverables met applicable standards and requirements 3. Nearly all consultant deliverables met applicable standards and requirements 4. All consultant deliverables consistently met applicable standards and requirements

B. Did the consultant apply strategies, technologies, innovative ideas and/or creative solutions that enhanced cost effectiveness, constructability, construction and operational safety, systems operation and maintenance and environmental sustainability?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Consultant did not apply strategies, technologies, innovative ideas and/or creative solutions

2. Consultant rarely applied strategies, technologies, innovative ideas and/or creative solutions

3. Consultant often applied strategies, technologies, innovative ideas and/or creative solutions

4. Consultant always employed strategies, technologies, innovative ideas and/or creative solutions

Comments:

Comments:

of 32

Comments:



C. Construction cost estimates developed by consultant were:

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. In excess of 30% above or below the bid price determined to be reasonable and responsible

2. 20-30% above or below the bid price determined to be reasonable and responsible 3. 10 to 20% above or below the bid price determined to be reasonable and responsible 4. Within 0-9% above or below the bid price determined to be reasonable and responsible

Average Score = Total Score/Number of Questions Scored

Comments:

of 32



Overall Comments on Performance

(to be completed by Project/Contract Manager)

In my opinion:

I have attached further information

☐

Yes

☐

No

Discussion with Consultant

I confirm that I have discussed this report with and have provided a copy

of this completed report on / /20 and it has been:

□ Accepted ☐ Not Accepted

Consultant Acknowledgement (optional)

When the Consultant and Project/Contract Manager are unable to resolve a disagreement as to the content of this report, the report is to be forwarded to the Project Director responsible for the procurement for resolution.

Completed and Reviewed by:

Signature

Name


Title Department

Signature

Name Department Director

/ /20

Date

of 32



Consultant Performance Report

Contract No:

Contract Executive Comments

Guidance notes

This portion of the report is required to be completed by the Project Director responsible for the contract only when there is disagreement between the Consultant and the Project/Contract Manager.

Project Director’s Comments

I have attached additional information Yes ☐ No☐

Name Title

Signature Date

Electronic copies of this Performance Report are available at: Click here to enter text.

of 32



EXHIBIT PCPP-17-3

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM PROCEDURES

1.0 PURPOSE

The purpose of the Contractor Performance Evaluation program is to:

Assess whether contractors possess the qualifications, capacity, and support

systems to successfully complete a contract in accordance with contract terms

and conditions.

Provide Sound Transit with a basis for determining a contractor’s capacity,

capability and expertise for contract performance.

Recognize contractor’s for exceptional contract performance.

Provide an opportunity for formal proactive, constructive feedback and two-way

communication.

Provide a history and an assessment of a contractor’s performance for use in

potential contract disputes, arbitration, mediation and/or legal proceedings.

The Contractor performance evaluation program is not intended to determine whether a Contractor has breached a contract with Sound Transit.

Sound Transit will evaluate performance of the prime contractor in the following areas:



Project Management

Technical, Performance.

2.1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

2.2 Performance Evaluation Criteria

Contractors will be evaluated on the following areas of performance. The evaluator may also review the Contractor’s performance in contract-specific areas.


Completeness and accuracy of contract documents and compliance with Sound Transit requirements

Compliance with contract terms, conditions and specifications

Compliance with the Equal Employment Opportunity, Project Labor Agreement and other Diversity requirements

of 32




Timeliness and appropriateness of responses to Agency requests

Effectiveness of relationships with Sound Transit, the public, jurisdictional stakeholders and other project consultants/contractors

Project Management

Success in integrating subcontractors, including small and small- disadvantaged enterprises,

Monitoring and reporting on team performance and resolving performance issues


Schedule monitoring and reporting

Meeting contract milestones

Completing the project within budget

Change order management and administration

Technical Performance

Quality of submittals/transmittals relative to industry, Sound Transit and jurisdictional stakeholder standards

Application of strategies, technologies, innovative ideas and/or creative solutions to enhance cost effectiveness, constructability, construction and operational safety, systems operation and maintenance and environmental sustainability

Conformance with standards of good workmanship

Responsiveness to correcting deficient work

Adequacy of inspections/testing

Accuracy of redline drawings

Safety

Effectiveness of community impact mitigation measures

2.3 PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Performance is rated numerically from one (1) to four (4), with a rating of (4) indicative of meeting all the requirements specified in the performance area and a rating of (1) indicative of not meeting those requirements. In addition narrative comments are required for ratings of (2) or below. A “N/A” designation is used only when the Contractor did not have direct or indirect responsibility for performance. An average score is determined and documented based on the ratings for the applicable performance areas.

of 32



2.4 Performance Reports

The Contractor Performance Report template is available on the Controlled Documents SharePoint site (Controlled Documents) and has been developed with check boxes to allow completion electronically. The performance reports shall be completed in accordance with the Consultant/Contractor Performance Evaluation Policy.

of 32

C

EXHIBIT PCPP-17- 4 (Example – Current Version in Form Library)

Contractor Performance Report

Contract Details Contract #

Contractor Details

Contractor

Contractor’s Representative

Name

Position

Tel

Email

Key Personnel

Team Members (Major Subcontractors)


Agency Contacts * Insert/delete rows as needed

Construction Manager

Contract Manager

Contract Specialist

Project Control Lead



Rev. 02 Release: 02/04/14 P PP-17 Consultant Contractor Performance Evaluation

Contract Title

Original Contract Price $ Value of all COs $

Current Contract Value $ Number of COs

Date of Contract / /20 Original Date for Completion / /20

Revised Date for Completion / /20

of 32



Reporting Period

Report Date: / /20 Percent complete %

Report Reason

□ Budget Amendment

□ Milestone Specify:

□ % Completion

Diversity Goal Performance *

Participation Goal(%) Performance (%)

Minority Participation

Female Particiation

Apprentice Participation

20%

*Based on percentage of labor hours in each trade

of 32



Performance Assessment

1. Contract Administration

A. Were contract documents (e.g., Requests for Information, Proposals and Change Orders, insurance certificates, pay applications, required notifications, submittals, audit related information, closeout documents etc.) received on time, complete, accurate and include appropriate backup, in accordance with Sound Transit requirements?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Documents consistently incomplete or late; major revisions needed most of the time

2. Documents frequently incomplete or late; major revisions needed over 50% of the time

3. Documents complete and on-time; minor revisions needed 4. Document consistently complete and on-time

B. Did the Contractor monitor subcontractors to ensure compliance with contract terms and conditions?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Rarely monitored contract compliance of subcontractors 2. Monitored contract compliance of subcontractors only 25% of the time 3. Monitored contract compliance of subcontractors the majority of the time 4. Consistently monitored contract compliance of subcontractors

C. Did the Contractor comply with all general and special conditions and technical specifications?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Did not meet all general or special condition requirements and technical specifications

2. Inconsistently met general or special condition requirements and technical specifications

3. Usually met general or special condition requirements and technical specifications

4. Always met general or special condition requirements and technical specifications

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

of 32



D. Did the Contractor comply with Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), the Project Labor Agreement (PLA) and other Diversity requirements?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Did not demonstrate EEO and/or PLA and Diversity program compliance 2. Inconsistently demonstrated EEO and/or PLA and Diversity program compliance 3. Usually demonstrated EEO and/or PLA and Diversity program compliance 4. Always demonstrated EEO and/or PLA and Diversity program compliance

2. Communication and Cooperation

A. Did Contractor appropriately respond to Agency requests in a complete and timely manner?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Poor correspondence and communications; often does not return phone calls, respond to e mail requests or provide notifications/submittals in accordance with contract terms and conditions.

2. <50% of correspondence, communications and responses/notifications/submittals are timely and complete

3. Correspondence, communications and responses/notifications/submittals are complete and timely the majority of the time

4. Correspondence and communications are complete and responses/notifications/submittals are always timely

B. How effective was the Contractor’s relationship with Sound Transit, the public, jurisdictional stakeholders, subcontractors, trade unions and other project Consultants/Contractors?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Interacts poorly with project constituencies; is not receptive to differing opinions/suggestions

2. Negatively interacts with most project constituencies; is seldom open to differing opinions /suggestions

3. Majority of interactions with project constituencies are positive; is receptive to differing opinions/suggestions

4. Exceptional rapport with all project constituencies; appropriately considers differing opinions/suggestions

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

of 32



Project Management

A. Did the Contractor’s project manager (PM) and Project Superintendent create a cohesive team that successfully integrated proposed subcontractors?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Subcontractors were not effectively integrated into the project team 2. Some subcontractors were effectively integrated into the project team 3. Majority of subcontractors were integrated into project team. 4. All subcontractors were effectively integrated into project team

B. Did the Contractor PM and Project Superintendent monitor team performance, anticipate and resolve performance issues and establish contingencies for unforeseen issues and successfully complete work as planned?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Did not monitor performance or proactively address performance issues 2. Performance monitoring was limited; addressed performance issues only when

made aware of them 3. Usually monitored performance and proactively addressed most performance

issues 4. Always monitored performance and proactively addressed all performance

issues

C. Did the Contractor maintain current schedules, effectively utilize resources and monitor performance to schedule?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Schedules were not current; resource utilization and monitoring schedule performance were ineffective.

2. Schedules were seldom current; resource utilization and monitoring schedule performance were ineffective

3. Schedules usually current; resource utilization and monitoring schedule performance were effective.

4. Schedules were always current; resource utilization and monitoring schedule performance were effective.

D. Were schedule objectives met?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

of 32



1. Did not meet schedule milestones; SPI consistently below 0.95 2. Met some schedule milestones; SPI trends below 0.95 3. Met most schedule milestones; SPI consistently above 0.95 4. Met all schedule milestones; SPI consistently above 0.95

E. Were the Contractor’s strategies for mitigating delays effective?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Unable to identify and mitigate schedule risks; multiple schedule milestones missed.

2. Identified and mitigated some schedule risks; some milestones were missed 3. Identified and mitigated most schedule risks; met most milestones 4. Identified and mitigated all schedule risk; all milestones met

F. Were budget objectives met?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Underestimated/overestimated cost to complete scope; CPI 0.85 or less /greater than 1.2

2. Underestimated/overestimated cost to complete scope; CPI below 0.90/above 1.15

3. Underestimated/overestimated cost to complete scope; CPI no less than 0.95/above 1.10

4. Estimated appropriately to complete scope; CPI less than 1.1

G. Did the contractor identify changes appropriately?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Frequently requested changes for scoped elements 2. Sometimes requested changes for scoped elements 3. Rarely requested changes for scoped elements 4. Did not requested changes for scoped elements

H. Cost proposals for change orders were:

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

of 32



1. Consistently in excess of 30% above or below the Independent Cost Estimate 2. Consistently 20-30% above or below the Independent Cost Estimate 3. Consistently 10 to 20% above or below the Independent Cost Estimate 4. Consistently within 0-9% above or below the Independent Cost Estimate

3. Technical Performance

A. Were submittals/transmittals appropriately justified and assumptions and basis documented in accordance with industry, Sound Transit and jurisdictional stakeholders’ standards?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Submittals/transmittals consistently did not meet applicable standards and requirements

2. Some submittals/transmittals met applicable standards and requirements 3. Nearly all submittals/transmittals met applicable standards and requirements 4. All submittals/transmittals met applicable standards and requirements

B. Did the Contractor apply strategies, technologies, innovative ideas and/or creative solutions that enhanced cost effectiveness, constructability, construction and operational safety, systems operation and maintenance and environmental sustainability?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Did not apply strategies, technologies, innovative ideas and/or creative solutions 2. Rarely applied strategies, technologies, innovative ideas and/or creative

solutions 3. Often applied strategies, technologies, innovative ideas and/or creative solutions 4. Always employed strategies, technologies, innovative ideas and/or creative

solutions

C. Did the Contractor conform to the standards of good workmanship and adhere to technical specifications?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Did not meet workmanship standards or comply with specifications 2. Rarely met workmanship standards or complied with specifications 3. Typically met workmanship standards and complied with specifications 4. Always met workmanship standards and complied with specifications

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

of 32



D. Did the Contractor promptly identify report and correct deficient work?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Did not identify or report deficient work; slow to correct deficiencies 2. Rarely identified or reported deficient work; often slow to correct deficiencies 3. Typically identified and reported deficient work; promptly corrected deficiencies 4. Always identified and reported deficient work; promptly corrected deficiencies

E. Did the Contractor appropriately inspect delivered materials and initial activities associated with discrete work elements and comply with testing and associated reporting requirements?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Did not inspect materials and initial work elements or comply with testing and reporting requirements

2. Rarely inspected materials and initial work elements or complied with testing and reporting requirements

3. Typically inspected materials and initial work elements or complied with testing and reporting requirements

4. Always inspected materials and initial work elements or complied with testing and reporting requirements

F. On site quality inspections:

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Repeatedly identified noncompliance/nonconformance issues 2. Often identified noncompliance/nonconformance issues 3. Seldom identified noncompliance/nonconformance issues 4. Routinely did not identify noncompliance/nonconformance issues

G. Did the Contractor’s shop drawings and redlines accurately depict modifications and/or changes?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Shop drawings/redlines rarely met contract requirements 2. Shop drawings/redlines often did not met contract requirements

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

of 32



3. Shop drawings/redlines typically met contract requirements 4. Shop drawings/redlines routinely met contract requirements

H. Did the Contractor develop and successfully implement, monitor compliance and accurately report in accordance with Health and Safety, Accident Prevention and Emergency Response Plan?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Developed Plan but was not successful in implementing, monitoring compliance and reporting

2. Developed Plan but routinely was not successful in implementing, monitoring compliance and reporting

3. Developed Plan and was regularly successful in implementing, monitoring compliance and reporting

4. Developed Plan and was consistently successful in implementing, monitoring compliance and reporting

I. The project’s loss time injury rate:

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Exceeded WA state average. 2. Was within 10% of WA state average 3. Met WA state average 4. Was lower than WA state average

J. Did the Contractor enforce the safety program and correct deficiencies/violations?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Did not enforce safety program or promptly correct deficiencies/violations 2. Inconsistently enforced safety program and did not promptly correct

deficiencies/violations 3. Regularly enforced safety program and promptly corrected deficiencies/violations 4. Always enforced safety program and promptly corrected deficiencies/violations

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

of 32



K. Did the Contractor maintain a clean worksite and perform measures (e.g., street sweeping, compliance with construction hours, etc.) for mitigating impacts on the community?

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Worksite not well maintained, mitigation measures not performed 2. Worksite sometimes well maintained; inconsistently performed mitigation

measures 3. Worksite typically well maintained; regularly performed mitigation measures 4. Worksite always well maintained; mitigation measures always implemented

L. The contractor embraced the partnering process and followed dispute resolution contract requirements; the performance of key Contractor staff was:

N/A ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐

1. Did not make effort to partner with Sound Transit; performance of key staff was unacceptable

2. Made some effort to partner with Sound Transit; performance of key staff was inconsistent

3. Effectively partnered with Sound Transit; performance of key staff was acceptable

4. Effectively partnered with Sound Transit; performance of key staff was exceptional

Average Score = Total Score/Number of Questions Scored

Overall Comments on Performance (to be completed by Construction

Manager)

In my opinion:

I have attached further information

☐

Yes

☐

No

Comments:

Comments:

of 32



Discussion with Contractor

I confirm that I have discussed this report with and have provided a

copy of this completed report on ……/ …… / 20…… and it has been:

□ Accepted ☐ Not Accepted

Contractor Acknowledgement (optional)

When the Contractor and Project/Contract Manager are unable to resolve a disagreement as to the content of this report, the report is to be forwarded to the Project Director responsible for the procurement for resolution.

Completed and Reviewed by:

/ /20

Name Signature


Title Department

Name

Signature

Department Director Date

of 32



Contractor Performance Report

Contract No:

Contract Executive Comments

Guidance notes

This portion of the report is required to be completed by the Project Director responsible for the contract only when there is disagreement between the Contractor and the Project/Contract Manager.

Project Director’s Comments

I have attached additional information Yes ☐ No☐

Name Title

Signature Date

Electronic copies of this Performance Report are available at: Click here to enter text.

Appendix C

Sample Evaluation Forms

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION MANUAL

Chapter 34 34 - 1 Updated 10/13

∗CHAPTER 34 – CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The Agency has implemented a process to evaluate the performance of the Contractor on each Project. The Project Manager (PM) must complete a Prime Contractor Performance Evaluation at the following times:

1. Annually on the anniversary date of the Notice to Proceed (NTP) for a Project, until the final Second Notification is issued, and

2. Within 60 Calendar Days after the date of the final Second Notification.

The evaluations will be done on the preceding duration of the Work. The final evaluation of a multi-year Project will be for the duration from the last annual evaluation to the completion of the field Work. There will not be an overall evaluation of the entire Project. As specified in Section 00120.00, the Agency will consider the results of those evaluations, and, if necessary, may require corrective action of affected Contractors or revoke bidding privileges. There are two separate processes depending on the Award date of the Project. The following sections outline the process for Projects Awarded prior to 1/1/2013 and for Projects Awarded after 1/1/2013. (a) Projects Awarded Prior to January 1, 2013 For Projects with NTP prior to January 1, 2013, the Prime Contractor Evaluation form 734-2469B needs to be prepared:

∗ All marked text updated October 2013

ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/techserv/construction/Construction Forms/2469.xls




The PM should try to secure the signature of the designated Contractor representative on the Evaluation. Send the original Evaluation to the Construction and Materials Engineer, care of the Contract Administration Unit (CAU), with a copy to the Region/Bridge Delivery Unit (BDU). If the Contractor does not agree with the evaluation, it may discuss it with the PM. If it still disagrees, it may appeal to the Region/BDU, whose decision is final. If the form is not signed by the Contractor and returned within 15 days, the PM must submit the unsigned form to the CAU. The Construction and Materials Engineer will evaluate a 12-month rolling average of the percentage scores from the evaluations to determine if the Agency must require the Contractor to implement corrective action or if the Agency will revoke the Contractor’s bidding privileges. If the Agency determines that it must revoke a Contractor’s bidding privileges, the Contractor may request to appeal that determination before a Department of Administrative Services hearings officer. If the evaluation is the final evaluation for the Project, the PM will also send a copy of the Contractor’s Construction Process Feedback, form 734-2469A:

ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/techserv/construction/Construction Forms/2469A.xls



This gives the Contractor an opportunity to provide feedback on the construction process for that Project. The PM will sign the Evaluation and submit the original form to the Construction and Materials Engineer, care of the CAU, with a copy to the Region/BDU. (b) Projects Awarded After January 1, 2013 For Projects with an Award date after January 1, 2013, the Prime Contractor Evaluation form 734-2884 needs to be prepared. Also, a documentation form must be prepared and submitted with the form. Comprehensive instructions will help the PM understand how to complete the form.



ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/techserv/construction/Construction Forms/2884_Instructions.pdf



There are two possibilities for the Contractor to appeal the evaluation. Documentation is imperative to support the score that is given to assist in the event there are appeals. If the evaluation is the final evaluation for the Project, the PM will also send a copy of the Contractor’s Construction Process Feedback, form 734-2469A. If there are questions regarding this process, please contact the Construction Program Analyst at (503) 986-3007.

ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/techserv/construction/Construction Forms/2469A.xls

SENT TO CONTRACTOR ON

PROJECT MANAGER EVALUATION YEAR

CONTRACTOR CONTRACT NO.

SUPERVISION1. Was the superintendent on the job at all critical times? (00150.40b) SCORE POSSIBLE

3 3

4 4

5 5

5 5

3 3

3 3

4 4

3 3

3 3

3 3

TOTAL THIS PAGE

PROJECT NAME

10. Was the project cleaned up and the final punch list completed in a timely manner? (00140.90)

If not, the problem was serious enough for the PM to send a written notice to the contractor to provide the necessary resources to

complete cleanup and punchlist work.

0 Notice = 3 Pts. 1+ Notice = 1 Pt.

7. Was all work completed on the project without the assessment of negative price adjustment(s) for materials or work that did

not comply with contract quality requirements? (00150.25 through 00165)

36

0 Notice = 3 Pts. 1+ Notice = 2 Pts. 2+ Notices = 1 Pt.

9. Did the contractor provide proper certification documents (00165.02 and 00180.70)

If not, the problem was serious enough for the PM to send a written notice to suspend work.

0 Notice = 3 Pts. 1+ Notice = 2 Pts. 2+ Notices = 1 Pt.

8. Did ODOT allow non-specification work (quality of workmanship) to remain, even though no price adjustment was assessed?

(00150.25 and 00165)

If so, it was serious enough that the PM sent written notice to the contractor to allow non-specification work to remain in place.

0% = 4 Pts. >0 - 1% = 3 Pts. >1-3% = 2 Pts. >3% = 1 Pt.

PRIME CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

If the superintendent was not available at critical times, the problem was serious enough for the PM to send a written notice to the

contractor

ENTER '0' FOR

NON-APPLICABLE

OFFICE USE ONLYDATE RECEIVED

PROGRESS SCHEDULE

5. Did the contractor submit the required schedules and narrative reports? (00180.41)

0 Notice = 4 pts. 1 Notice = 2 Pts. 2+ Notices = 1 Pt.

2. Did the contractor comply with directions of PM or inspector(s) in areas other than those already covered in this evaluation

form? (00150.00)

3. Did any of the contractor's supervisors have to be removed from the job? (00180.30)

If so, the PM sent written notice to the contractor directing removal of one of the subcontractor's supervisors and/or one of the

contractor's supervisors from the project.

If not, calculate the percentage as a total of the negative price adjustment divided by total contract payments.

4. Was the contract completed within the allotted contract time and without liquidated damages? (00180.85)

If not, at the conclusion of the project, calculate the total number of days in liquidated damages divided by adjusted contract time (in

days).

If not, the problem was serious enough for the PM to withhold progress payment(s) and send a written notice to the contractor.


0 Notice = 5 Pts. 1 Notice Re Sub's Supv. = 4 Pts. 1 Notice Re Prime's Supv. = 2 Pts. 1 Notice each Re Sub & Prime Supv. = 1 Pt.

QUALITY OF MATERIALS & WORKMANSHIP6. Was the work completed with the quality of materials, workmanship or other quality specifications required? (00150.00 and

00180.70)

If not, the problem was serious enough for the PM to send a notice to the contractor to suspend work.

0 Notice = 3 Pts. 1-2 Notices = 2 Pts. 3+ Notices = 1 Pt.

FINAL % SCORE

INSTRUCTIONS TO PROJECT MANAGER (PM): Answer questions 1-20, determine appropriate points to be assigned to each question and enter in the box next to the question. For

questions that do not apply, enter '0' in the score box. A) If an authorized contractor representative is available, review the completed evaluation with the representative. Both PM

and contractor representative are to sign and date the form. Forward the signed and dated original to the Contract Administration Engineer. Send a copy to the contractor's

home office and ODOT Region office. B) If an authorized representative is unavailable to review the evaluation, sign and date the evaluation, fax a copy to the home office for their

review and signature. After receiving a signed copy from contractor, send the original evaluation to the Contract Administration Engineer. Send a copy to the appropriate

Region office. If the contractor does not return a signed copy within 15 calendar days, send copy to the Contract Administration Engineer and Region office.

0 Notice = 3 pts. 1-2 Notices = 2 Pts. 3+ Notices = 1 Pt.

If the contractor disregarded directions, the problem was serious enough for the PM to send a written notice to the contractor.

0% = 5 Pts. >0-2% = 4 Pts. >2 - 5% = 3 Pts. >5 - 10% = 2 Pts. >10% = 1 Pt.

734-2469 (9-2007)

3 3

3 3

0 0

3 3

0 0

3 3

3 3

5 5

3 3

6 6

TOTAL

SCORE

TOTAL

POSSIBLE

65 65

NOTE: Use a separate sheet for additional comments and staple to the back of this document.

100.00%

19. Did the contractor comply with the requirements referenced in (00290.00 through 00290.91) and any related permits acquired

for the project?

If not, the PM sent a written notice to the contractor after the contractor disregarded contract requirements, or because the contractor

failed to correct deficiencies.


MAJOR BREACH

Percentage Score

CONTRACT REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE AND DATE (Signature indicates that contractor has reviewed

evaluation.)

PROJECT MANAGER SIGNATURE AND DATE

20. Did the contractor receive a breach of contract letter for this project from the Chief Engineer?

0 Breach = 6 Pts. 1 Breach = 1 Pt.

Percentage Score

(TOTAL SCORE/TOTAL POSSIBLE)X100

18. Were traffic restrictions on this project in accordance with contract allowances? (00220.00 - 00220.90)?

If not, the problem was serious enough for the PM to send a written notice to the contractor.

0 Notice = 5 Pts. 1 Notice = 3 Pts. 2+ Notices = 1 Pt.

COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS

TRAFFIC CONTROL17. Did the contractor provide and comply with the Traffic Control Plan? (00220.00 - 00225.97 and 00180.70)

If not, the problem was serious enough for the PM to send a written notice to the contractor to correct or suspend work.

0 Notice = 3 Pts. 1 Notice = 2 Pts. 2+ Notices = 1 Pt.

SAFETY16. Did the contractor comply with OSHA and contract safety regulations for this project? (00170.60)

If not, the problem was serious enough for the PM to send a written notice to the contractor to take corrective action.


13. Did the contractor meet the Commercially Useful Function (CUF) requirements for this project? (Disadvantaged Business

Enterprise Provisions)

If not, the problem was serious enough for the PM to send a written notice notifying the contractor of the CUF violation.


14. Did the contractor meet the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) requirements for this project? (EEO Provisions)

If not, the contractor had to submit a corrective action plan.


15. Did the contractor fulfill the On-The-Job Training (OJT) requirements for this project? (OJT Provisions)

If not, at the conclusion of the project the PM sent written notice to the contractor notifying the contractor that the OJT provisions had

not been met.


12. Did the contractor comply with wage payment requirements for this project? (00170.65b)

If not, ODOT had to send funds to BOLI so they could pay workers directly after the contractor refused to pay wages or correct

underpayment.

No funds sent to BOLI = 3 Pts. 1+ times funds sent to BOLI = 1 Pt.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

PAYMENT

11. Did the contractor comply with subcontractor and supplier payment requirements? (00170.10 and ORS 279.314)

If not, ODOT sent written notice to the contractor or receipt of bond claim filing(s) from first tier suppliers and subcontractors. (This

excludes retainage or monies which were actually in dispute.)

0 Notice = 3 Pts. 1-2 Notices = 2 Pts. 3+ Notices = 1 Pt.

Agree

Disagree

734-2469 (9-2007)

Construction Contractor Evaluation Form

2000 – Exhibit 12

Contractor Name and Address: Evaluation Type:

Contractor Sub-Contractor

Project Name: GIS Number:

Project Number:

Type of Work: Date Contract Agreement Approved:

Roadway Bridge Curb, Gutter, and/or Sidewalk

Intersection Other (Specify): Type of Contract Agreement:

Complexity of Work: ACHD Use: New Construction Maintenance

Difficult Routine Simple Other (Specify):

Amount of Original Contract Agreement: Number and Total Amount of Change Orders: Total Contract Agreement Amount:

$ $ $

Original Contract Agreement Completion Date: Actual Completion Date (with Extensions): Actual Total Amount Paid:

$

Type and Extent of Subcontracting: DBE GOALS: Percent Committed: Percent Met:

Performance Rating Scale:

5 4 3 2 1 N/A = Not Applicable Outstanding Above Average Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Co-Signed by Construction Coordinator (Name and Title): Construction Coordinator Signature: Date:

Co-Signed by Project Manager (Name and Title): Project Manager Signature: Date:

Criteria

1. Quality Control Criteria: Score:

A. Quality of Workmanship

B. Quality of Materials

C. Adequacy and Condition of Equipment

D. Timely Identification and Correction of Deficient Work


2000 – Exhibit 12

E. Sub-Contractor Performance

F. Adequacy of Submittals

G. Other:

2. Schedule Criteria: Score:

A. Adequacy of Original Progress Schedule

B. Submission of Revised Progress Schedules

C. Adherence to Approved Schedule, As Amended

D. Timely and Diligent Progression of Work

E. Timely Submission of Required Documentation

F. Resolution of Delays

G. Timely and Diligent Completion of Punch List Work

H. Other:

3. Management Criteria: Score:

A. Cooperation and Responsiveness

B. Management of Resources and Personnel

C. Coordination and Control of Sub-Contractors

D. Coordination of Utilities

E. Effectiveness of Job Site Supervision

F. Professional Conduct

G. Adequacy of Site Maintenance and Clean-Up

H. Adequacy of “Good Neighbor” Efforts

I. Traffic Control and Maintenance

J. Other:


2000 – Exhibit 12

4. Communication Criteria: Score:

A. Produced clear, concise oral and written communications

B. Demonstrated an understanding of oral and written instructions

C. Communicated at intervals appropriate for the work

D. Respected and used acceptable lines of communication

E. Communicated openly and honestly

F. Other:

5. Regulatory Compliance Criteria: Score:

A. Compliance with OSHA Safety Requirements

B. Timely Submission and Adequacy of Safety Program

C. Effectiveness of Job Site Safety Representative

D. Timely and Diligent Implementation of Safety Recommendations/Corrective Action

E. Overall Job Site Safety Effort

F. Overall Employee Safety Effort

G. ADA Compliance (provide effective access, compliant signage & detours)

H. Storm water, 404 Permit

I. Other

6. Other Compliance Criteria: Score:

Additional Comments (Optional):


2000 – Exhibit 12

Evaluation Instructions:

Why Evaluate Construction Contractors/Sub-Contractors? • Scores from these evaluations factor into "Past Performance" ratings that are used to assist in determining

contractor selection for future awards.

• Meaningful evaluations help ACHD to provide feedback to Contractors and Sub-Contractors to improve future performance and, thereby, award to the very best contractors.

How to Evaluate Contractors/Sub-Contractors: • Evaluation forms are available from the Capital Projects, Construction, and Contract Administration. • When assessing the schedule completion, address ACHD delays, if any. • Ratings should be based on field notes, observations, and other experience germane to the Contractor/

Sub-Contractor performance on the current project. • Score accurately. A score of four (4) is respectable, however, a score of five (5) is exceptional and should

used judiciously.

When to Evaluate Contractors /Sub-Contractors: • Always complete the Contractor Evaluation Form within a reasonable period of time following the point of

Acceptance of Project Completion. All Sub-Contractors with significant project participation, i.e., more than $50,000, should also be evaluated.

University of Washington Section 00 73 20 CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM Page 1 of 9

Last Revised July 10, 2008

University of Washington

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM

I. POLICY

The University of Washington through its Capital Project Office (Owner), is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that all public works improvement projects are awarded to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid, and are performed in compliance with the Contract Documents and applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Owner is responsible to the citizens of the State to oversee the expenditure of public funds, and to secure the best possible results for that expenditure. To assist the Owner in evaluating a Contractor's responsibility, as well as its performance on contracts of the Owner, the Contractor Performance Evaluation Program has been developed. The implementation of a mandatory, standardized system of evaluating Contractors' performance is expected to yield consistency, objectivity, fairness, and accountability.

II. PURPOSE

The purpose of the Contractor Performance Evaluation Program is to better assure that Contractors considered for contract award on public works projects either possess, or will likely possess at the time contract performance is set to begin, all qualifications necessary to successfully complete the project on time. Among other things, the Program is intended to: ° Assist the Owner in exercising its discretion to determine a Contractor's qualifications

and abilities to successfully perform a particular contract. ° Provide the Owner with a rational basis for deter mining that a Contractor is or is not

responsible. ° Provide Contractors with a means of enhancing the ir qualifications and reputation by

receiving recognition for high standards of performance. ° Encourage better working relationships between th e Owner and Contractors. ° Provide official, verifiable references for Contr actors who may be under consideration for

award of, or approval on, contracts to be awarded by other public owners. ° Provide a history and an assessment of a Contract or's performance on prior contracts of

the Owner for use in suspension or debarment proceedings.

The Contractor Performance Evaluation Program is not intended to determine whether a Contractor has breached a contract with the Owner, or to determine the acceptability of any particular noncompliance with Contract requirements.

III. PERFORMANCE CATEGORY EVALUATION GUIDE

The Performance Category Evaluation Guide establishes criteria to be used in evaluating the Contractor's performance in connection with each Performance Category, and describes five Performance Levels, which range in ascending order of merit from "Inadequate" to "Superior".



The "Standard" Performance Level is considered a baseline; it characterizes the level of acceptable performance normally associated with a reasonably prudent, diligent, and skilled Contractor working on projects of the same general type and size. Both the "Superior" and "Good" Levels characterize performance levels that exceed the baseline; they respectively connote consistent and substantial positive contributions to the overall project. Both the "Deficient" and "Inadequate" Levels characterize levels of performance that fall below the baseline, and respectively connote substantial and serious detriment to the overall project. The "No Evaluation" Level is to be used only where the Contractor had no direct or indirect responsibility for performance. The five Performance Levels are more specifically described as follows, and the criteria set forth for each shall be applied in evaluating the Contractor's performance in connection with each of the Performance Categories listed in Section III of the Contractor Performance Evaluation Report: A. Superior To merit an evaluation of "Superior" in any Performance Category, the

Contractor must have consistently demonstrated:

(1) Command or virtual mastery of the Contract Documents related to that Performance Category;

(2) Performance of the work or activity being evaluated under that

Performance Category that always exceeded or surpassed the material requirements of the Contract;

(3) A highly cooperative attitude in dealing with Owner’s employees,

consultants, and the public in connection with that Performance Category, which attitude made a substantial, positive contribution to the Project; and

(4) Initiative in carrying out his or her duties in connection with that

Performance Category in a responsive, thorough, and timely manner without prompting by the Owner’s Representative.

If the Contractor fails to satisfy any one of the Performance Level criteria set out above, then his or her performance will be re-evaluated under the "Good" Level by applying the criteria for that Level.

B. Good To merit an evaluation of "Good" in any Performance Category, the Contractor

must have demonstrated:

(1) Thorough knowledge of Contract Documents related to that Performance Category;


Performance Category that always met, and often exceeded, the material requirements of the Contract;

(3) A cooperative attitude in dealing with Owner’s employees, consultants,

and the public in connection with that Performance Category, which attitude made a positive contribution to the project; and



(4) Initiative in carrying out his or her duties in connection with that Performance Category in a responsive, thorough, and timely manner with only minimal prompting by the Owner’s Representative.

If the Contractor fails to satisfy any one of the Performance Level criteria set out above, then his or her performance will be re-evaluated under the "Standard" Level by applying the criteria for that Level.

C. Standard To merit an evaluation of "Standard" in any Performance Category, the

Contractor must have demonstrated: (1) Acceptable knowledge of the Contract Documents related to that

Performance Category; (2) Performance of the work or activity being evaluated under that

Performance Category that met all material Contract requirements; (3) A generally cooperative attitude toward Owner’s employees,

consultants, and the public in connection with that Performance Category; and

(4) Initiative in carrying out his or her duties in connection with that

Performance Category in a responsive, thorough, and timely manner with only moderate prompting by the Owner’s Representative.

If the Contractor fails to satisfy any one of the Performance Level criteria set out above, then his or her performance will be re-evaluated under the "Deficient" and "Inadequate" Levels by applying the criteria for those Levels.

D. Deficient To merit an evaluation of "Deficient" in any Performance Category, the

Contractor must have demonstrated:

(1) Marginal knowledge of the Contract Documents related to that Performance Category;


Performance Category that did not always meet the material Contract requirements, and such failures were not excusable as the sole fault and responsibility of one or more other parties;

(3) An occasionally uncooperative attitude toward Owner’s employees,

consultants, or the public in connection with that Performance Category; or

(4) Performance of his or her duties in connection with that Performance

Category in a moderately unresponsive, inattentive, or dilatory manner, or after frequent or repeated prompting by the Owner’s Representative.

E. Inadequate To merit an evaluation of "Inadequate" in any Performance Category, the

Contractor must have either: (a) failed to satisfy the criteria listed for the Performance Levels of "Superior", "Good", "Standard", and "Deficient" set out above and did not qualify for treatment under Section III.F below; or (b) must have demonstrated:



(1) Inadequate knowledge of the Contract Documents related to that Performance Category;


Performance Category which seldom met the material Contract requirements, and such failures were not excusable as the sole fault and responsibility of one or more other parties;

(3) A seriously uncooperative attitude toward Owner’s employees,

consultants, or the public in connection with that Performance Category; or

(4) Performance of his or her duties in connection with that Performance

Category in a seriously unresponsive, inattentive, or dilatory manner, or only after frequent prompting by Owner’s Representative.

F. No Evaluation. This rating should only be used in those circumstances where the

Contractor had no contractual responsibility, either directly or through its subcontractors, suppliers, or materialmen, for performance related to that Performance Category. .

IV. OVERALL EVALUATION GUIDE

The Contractor's Overall Evaluation can be determined by placing the Overall Percentage Score calculated on the Contractor Performance Evaluation Report within the numerical ranges of the following narrative ratings in the Overall Evaluation Guide:

A. SUPERIOR (Overall Percentage Score of 90% or above)

The Contractor exceeded the Contract requirements and expectations in most or all of the areas evaluated. The Contractor was extremely or completely knowledgeable regarding Contract requirements and applicable laws and regulations. A consistently high level of cooperation, project management, and job site control appreciably contributed to an unusually good result. The Contractor is commended for excellent performance.

B. GOOD (Overall Percentage Score of 70% to 89%)

The Contractor met Contract requirements evaluated, and exceeded them in some areas. The Contractor was generally cooperative, and performed his/her work with a minimum of prompting. The results of the performance were very good.

C. STANDARD (Overall Percentage Score of 50% to 69%)

The Contractor generally satisfied the minimum requirements of the Contract as evaluated. The Contractor occasionally had to be prompted or reminded of Contract requirements, but overall management of the Project was good, producing a good result.

D. DEFICIENT (Overall Percentage Score of 30% to 49%)

Even though the Project may have been accepted, the Contractor's performance as evaluated was marginal overall. While the Contractor



performed some tasks satisfactorily, most elements evaluated reflected a less than satisfactory response to Contract requirements.

E. INADEQUATE (Overall Percentage Score of 29% or below)

The Contractor's performance as evaluated did not meet minimum Contract requirements, or so otherwise detracted from the Project as to seriously call it into jeopardy. While the Project may have been accepted by the Owner, the effort expended by the Owner’s Representative in prompting the Contractor to perform was excessive. The Contractor's poor or uncooperative performance created serious unnecessary or avoidable difficulties in achieving contract completion.

A Contractor's Overall Evaluation, being based upon an averaged rate on a discrete number of Performance Categories, should not be read or interpreted as a measure of whether the Contractor did or did not breach the contract in question.

V. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORTS

Each Contractor Performance Evaluation Report shall be prepared by, or at the direction of, the Owner’s Representative who will include numerical ratings substantiated, when necessary, by one or more narratives which describe the Contractor's performance.

Every Contractor Performance Evaluation Report containing Performance Level evaluations of "Deficient" or "Inadequate", and all Overall Evaluations on projects the total cost of which is $500,000 or more, shall contain one or more narratives which provide details substantiating the evaluations. Narratives may be provided for other Performance Categories as the evaluator deems necessary. Narratives provided with a Contractor Performance Evaluation Report shall be based upon documentation prepared during the life of the project, e.g., project diaries, inspectors' reports, and other pertinent documents. Such documentation shall constitute a major portion of the administrative record to be used for any review, appeal, or litigation that may arise from the evaluation process. Every Contractor Performance Evaluation Report shall be signed by the Owner’s Representative and the supervisor of the Owner’s Representative before a copy of the Report shall be transmitted to the Contractor. The Report shall not be considered final until such time as the review/appeal periods described in Section VI herein have been completed. Generally, only one Contractor Performance Evaluation Report shall be issued, following completion of the contract Work. However, in addition to a final Report, one or more interim Reports may be issued at the discretion of the Owner when:

° A contract is of long duration, particularly thos e in excess of one year. ° An individual charged with primary responsibility for administration of the

Contract will cease his or her involvement with the Project prior to completion of the Work.

° Contractor's performance at 50% completion is def icient or inadequate.



Interim Contractor Performance Evaluation Reports shall be considered to be preliminary and shall be designated as such, and shall be processed administratively in the same manner as a Final Report. A Contractor may request review of an Interim Report by the applicable project Director in the Owner’s Capital Projects Office; and appeal to the Owner’s Associate Vice President for Capital Projects or his/her designee pursuant to the provisions of Section VI below. All Interim Reports shall be attached to, and considered when preparing, the Final Report. If a Contractor Performance Evaluation Report is an Interim Report, the Report should indicate on its face that it is Interim, and shall contain the following language:

This Performance Evaluation Report is not the final report on this Contractor on this Project. The Contractor may dispute the Report or any part thereof, and need not seek review or appeal until completion and acceptance of the Project.

VI. NOTICE, REVIEW, AND APPEAL

A. Notice. Contractors shall be mailed a copy of their Contractor Performance Evaluation Report within a reasonable time after completion of the Report. A Contractor who is given an Overall Evaluation of "Deficient" or "Inadequate" in connection with a project shall be provided with a copy of the Contractor Performance Evaluation Report via certified mail (return receipt requested).

B. Review. A Contractor who disputes, or is otherwise dissatisfied with, his or her

Contractor Performance Evaluation Report may request review of the Report by the applicable project Director in the Owner’s Capital Projects Office. The request must be submitted in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt by the Contractor of the Final Contractor Performance Evaluation Report. The request must also state, with specificity, all bases for the requested review.

The applicable project Director shall, upon receipt of a proper and timely request,

review the Contractor Performance Evaluation Report and any documentation submitted by the Contractor with his or her request. The applicable project Director shall, on the basis of his or her review, issue findings which may affirm, correct, or modify all or any part of the Report. A copy of the findings shall be mailed to the Contractor via certified mail, return receipt requested.

C. Appeal. Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt by the Contractor of the applicable

project Director’s findings on review, the Contractor may appeal therefrom to the Owner’s Associate Vice President for Capital Projects or his/her designee. Any such appeal shall be in writing, and shall state with specificity the bases or grounds for the appeal.

The Associate Vice President for Capital Projects or his/her designee shall review and

consider the objectivity, accuracy, completeness, and fairness of the Contractor Performance Evaluation Report, together with the applicable project Director’s findings, engineers' diaries, job records and other documentation, including such documentation as the Contractor may provide with the appeal.

Upon hearing and review of the applicable project Director’s findings, the Associate Vice President for Capital Projects or his/her designee shall issue a determination and findings which may affirm or modify the Contractor's Contractor Performance Evaluation Report. The



Associate Vice President for Capital Projects or his/her designee shall notify the Contractor of its determination and findings by certified mail (return receipt requested).

VII. NOT RESPONSIBLE DETERMINATION FOR WORK ON SPECIFIC PROJECT

The Owner’s Associate Vice President for Capital Projects may determine, from Contractor Performance Evaluation Reports and other public documents relating to the project in question, that a Contractor who has received one or more Overall Evaluations of "Deficient" or "Inadequate" is not a responsible bidder and not able to successfully perform a specific project of the Owner for which the Contractor submitted a bid, and is therefore ineligible for award of that contract. When, on that basis, the Owner’s Associate Vice President for Capital Projects believes that the low bidder is not a responsible bidder and not able to successfully perform a project, the Owner shall notify the low bidder in writing of its determination that the bidder is not a responsible bidder. The bidder may appeal the determination within the time period specified in the Instructions to Bidders by presenting additional information to the Owner. The Owner shall consider the additional information before issuing its final determination. In evaluating the additional information, the Owner may or may not meet with the bidder to hear additional information. If the final determination affirms that the bidder is not responsible, the Owner will not execute a contract with any other bidder until two business days after the bidder determined to be not responsible has received the final determination.

VIII. DEBARMENT OF CONTRACTOR

The Owner’s Associate Vice President for Capital Projects or his/her designee, after conducting a hearing with the Contractor and evaluating the evidence, may debar a Contractor from contracting with the Owner for a period of up to two years if a Contractor has received overall evaluations of their performance of "Deficient" or "Inadequate" on three or more projects of the Owner physically completed during the preceding five (5) year period.

IX. RELEASE OF INFORMATION

Contractor Performance Evaluation Reports are public documents subject to disclosure to other governments and to the public. Because the Reports and the Overall Evaluations they contain may be used as a basis for contract award and may reflect upon the Contractor's reputation, care must be taken to assure that only accurate, complete, and current information is released. A. Final Reports. Contractor Performance Evaluation Reports may be released when:

(1) The Report becomes final as set forth in Section V herein; or (2) The Owner has relied upon the Report for the purpose of taking further

action with respect to the Contractor; or

(3) A court has ordered release of the Report. B. Interim Reports. Interim Contractor Performance Evaluation Reports may only be

released when:

(1) The Contractor has consented in writing to the release; or



(2) The Contractor has requested and received final administrative review of an Interim Report; or

(3) The Owner has used or relied upon the Interim Report to take action with

respect to the Contractor; or (4) A court has ordered release of the Report.

C. Termination for Cause and Pending Litigation. In the event that the Contract is terminated by Owner for cause, this fact shall be noted on the Contractor's Contractor Performance Evaluation Report. In the event that a Contractor commences suit against the Owner, that Contractor's Performance Evaluation Report shall not be released without approval from the Washington State Attorney General's Office.

D. Intergovernmental Cooperation. All requests for Contractor references from agencies

of foreign, federal, state, or local governments shall be referred to the Owner’s applicable project Director or his/her designee. If such a request is honored, the requesting agency shall be provided with copies of all Contractor Performance Evaluation Reports on the Contractor, together with any written objections or refutations filed with the Owner by the Contractor in connection therewith.

X. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING EVALUATION FORMS

The Owner’s Representative shall complete Sections I (Contractor Data) and II (Project Data), and then evaluate the Contractor’s performance in each of the Performance Categories listed in Section III (Performance Data) of the Contractor Performance Evaluation Report, and shall assign points for each category based on the Performance Level applicable for the Contractor’s performance. The descriptions provided on the Contractor Performance Evaluation Report form for each Performance Category will not necessarily match precisely with the Contractor's actual performance of the task(s) on a given portion of the project. The Owner’s Representative should consider the general character of the Contractor's performance for each Performance Category evaluated and select the Performance Level that most closely matches the actual performance. If the Contractor was not responsible for any performance in connection with a given Performance Category, then the Contractor's evaluation in that Category should be "No Evaluation," and no points should be assigned. When rating a Contractor, the Owner’s Representative should consider all the work performed by the Contractor as well as work performed by all subcontractors, since the Contractor is contractually responsible to the Owner for all of the work under the Contract, whether or not the Contractor actually performs the work. Interim Reports, if issued, shall be attached to the Final Report. Comments are always encouraged, and may be written on the Contractor Performance Evaluation Report or on an attachment to the Report. However, for each Performance Category evaluated as "Deficient" or "Inadequate", the Owner’s Representative must prepare a written narrative substantiating the facts and circumstances giving rise to the evaluation.



After evaluating the Contractor on Performance Categories listed in Section III of the Contractor Performance Evaluation Report, the Owner’s Representative shall total all of the points assigned and divide that into the total points possible (excluding those Performance Categories evaluated as "No Evaluation"). The evaluator will enter the resulting Overall Percentage Score on the Report, and will enter the appropriate Overall Evaluation on the basis of the following ranges:

Superior Overall percentage score of 90% or above Good Overall percentage score of 70% to 89% Standard Overall percentage score of 50% to 69% Deficient Overall percentage score of 30% to 49% Inadequate Overall percentage score of 29% or below

The Owner’s Representative shall sign the Report and forward it to his or her supervisor for concurrence signature and submission to the Owner’s Contracts Department. The Contracts Department staff shall then forward signed copies of the completed Report to the Contractor.

END OF SECTION 00 73 20

Appendix D

Recent WSDOT DB Project Goals and Criteria

December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109 D‐1

Recent WSDOT DB Project Goals and Criteria

The table below presents RFQ evaluation criteria and objectives from a recent WSDOT Design Build project (I‐405 Hard Running Shoulders) that are either directly or indirectly related to contractor past performance. Future DB solicitations could benefit from the collection of this performance data.

RFQ Evaluation Objectives and Criteria

Project Objectives

Excellent Project Management

Goal 1: Through effective project management, provide a successful design‐build project by collaborating with WSDOT to efficiently resolve issues at the Project level, by engaging and effectively managing Subcontractors to meet the project goals, and by implementing a strong quality management program.

Goal 2: Excellent Project Management is achieved by:

Collaborating with a public agency owner to efficiently resolve issues at the project level in a timely and cost effective manner.

Implementing a successful quality assurance program on design‐build transportation projects.

Goal 3: Minimize Impacts by:

Designing and constructing project elements within constraints, such as time, physical space, and/or weather.

Maintain consistency with site conditions; good engineering practices; context sensitive solutions; environmental documents and permits; and other standards, guidelines, and procedures identified in the RFP and the project goals.

The entity providing WSDOT pre‐qualification in accordance with Section 7.4 of this RFQ.

The lead engineering/design firms.

Each engineering/design sub‐consultant who is expected to perform 30 percent or more of the design Work.

Each subcontractor who is expected to perform 20 percent or more of the construction Work.

Avoidance/management of COI.

Team continuity and changes to organizational structure.

Outreach efforts to provide MSVWBE’s maximum practicable 25 opportunities

Ensure the Project is managed and delivered in accordance with the Contract requirements and to ensure that the Design‐Builder meets or exceeds the project goals.

Delays: For each project listed in the narrative, identify any delays to Substantial Completion, Physical Completion, or interim project milestones identified in the referenced contract. Describe the reason for the delay(s).

Issue Resolution: Provide details and an explanation for any dispute proceedings associated with disputes of review board procedures, claims, arbitration, or litigation that stemmed from the projects identified in the narrative.

Sanctions: For each project listed in the narrative, identify any violations, penalties, fines, or other damages assessed against a Major Participant resulting from permit non‐compliance. Describe the reason for the sanction(s) and total value assessed against the Major Participant on the project.

(Table Continues)

D‐2 December 2016 │ 557‐1631‐109

RFQ Evaluation Objectives and Criteria (Continued)

Project Criteria (Table 7.1 Adjectival Evaluation and Scoring Guide 1)

Adjective and Description Percent of Max. Score

Excellent (E)

SOQ supports an extremely strong expectation of successful Project performance if ultimately selected as the Design‐Builder.

SOQ indicates significant strengths and/or a number of minor strengths and no appreciable weaknesses.

Submitter provides a consistently outstanding level of quality.

100 – 90 %

Very Good (VG)

SOQ indicates significant strengths and/or minor strengths and no significant weaknesses.

Minor weaknesses, if any, are offset by strengths.

There exists a small possibility that, if ultimately selected as the Design‐Builder, the minor weaknesses could slightly adversely affect successful project performance.

89 – 75 %

Good (G)

SOQ indicates significant strengths and/or a number of minor strengths.

Minor and significant weaknesses exist that could detract from strengths.

While the weaknesses could be improved, minimized, or corrected, it is possible that, if ultimately selected as the Design‐Builder, the weaknesses could adversely affect successful Project performance.

If all elements evaluated for a section of the SOQ receive “Neutral” designations, then that section will be rated at 50 percent.

74 – 50 %

Fair (F)

SOQ indicates weaknesses, significant or minor, which are not offset by significant or minor strengths.

It is probable that, if ultimately selected as the Design‐Builder, the weaknesses would adversely affect successful Project performance.

49 – 25 %

Poor (P)

SOQ indicates existence of significant weaknesses and/or a number of minor weaknesses and no appreciable strengths. SOQ indicates a strong expectation that successful performance could not be achieved if Submitter were selected as the Design‐Builder.

24 – 0 %

Washington State Department of Transportation I-5/SR 16 Interchange – Construct HOV Connections Project

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS A-5 November 2, 2015

FORM C 1

REFERENCE INFORMATION FOR MAJOR PARTICIPANTS 2

(To be included in Appendix C of the Statement of Qualifications) 3 4

5

(Name of Major Participant) (Category per Section 5.1) 6

7 PART 1 8

Title of Referenced Project:

Description of the Work/Services Provided:

Percentage of Overall Project Work Performed by Major Participant:

Reference

Owner Name: Contact Name: Email: Phone:

Contract Amount: Other Completion Milestones

Description:

Proposed:

Actual/Projected:

Description:

Proposed:

Actual/Projected:

Description:

Proposed:

Actual/Projected:

Contracting Method:

% Complete:

Substantial Completion

Proposed:

Actual/Projected:

Physical Completion

Proposed:

Actual/Projected:

Completion

Proposed:

Actual/Projected:

9

Washington State Department of Transportation I-5/SR 16 Interchange – Construct HOV Connections Project

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS A-6 November 2, 2015

1 PART 2 2

Issue resolution and sanctions narrative*: Required only for Major Participants listed in Categories A, and C in Section 5.1

3 PART 3 4

Key personnel changes narrative*: Required only for Major Participants listed in Categories A, C, and D in Section 5.1

* Attach additional pages for narrative information, as necessary. 5

Appendix E

Example Partnering Survey

SR 520 Floating Bridge Landings ProjectPartnering Survey Results

1 of 6

Answer options: Response % Response CountKGM 63% 22WSDOT 37% 13Total 100% 35

What organization do you represent?

KGM 22

63%

WSDOT 13

37%


2 of 6

Answer options: Response % Total WSDOT KGMBellevue 51% 18 10 8Kenmore 0% 0 0 0Medina 49% 17 3 14Total 100% 35 13 22

Answer options: Response % Total WSDOT KGM0 months --> 1 year 14% 5 0 5More than 1 year 86% 30 13 17Total 100% 35 13 22

At which site do you spend the majority of your workday?

How long have you been with the SR 520 Bridge & Landings Project?

10

0 3

8

0

14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Bellevue Kenmore Medina

WSDOT KGM

0

13

5

17

0 months --> 1 Year More than 1 year0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

WSDOT KGM


3 of 6

Safety

Quality

4.82

4.86

4.68

4.38

4.38

4.38

1 - Safety issues are identified and are quickly and adequately resolvedby WSDOT and KGM

2 - Safety is emphasized regularly by WSDOT and KGM. We care aboutthe Safety of our People.

3 - We make Safety Personal

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

KGM WSDOT KGMPrior WSDOTPrior

4.36

4.50

4.32

4.50

3.54

3.38

3.38

3.54

4 - WSDOT and KGM strive for the highest value possible while meetingor exceeding standards in all areas of the project

5 - Adequate resources and procedures are in place to ensure the projectmeets the quality goals

6 - We build things right the first time.

7 - Quality issues and trends are identified and are quickly andadequately resolved.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


The 520 Floating Bridge & Landings Project is focused on partnering to improve quality, minimize cost and eliminate disputes. This quarterly survey is one tool to guage the health of the partnership. OVERALL: * 35 participants completed surveys * The survey rating scale is 1 through 5. The lowest a question can be rating is "1" and the highest is "5". If a participant rated any question as "3" or below they were requested to give feedback as to why they rated lower.


4 of 6

Cost

Compliance

4.59

4.86

3.69

3.85

8 - KGM and WSDOT work together to meet all environmental,regulatory and permit requirements.

9 - This project team is acting as a good steward of the environment.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


4.18

4.41

3.62

4.23

10 - KGM and WSDOT work together to mitigate risk and minimizeunnecessary cost.

11 - WSDOT and KGM have an excellent understanding of the project andestablish priorities accordingly.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00



5 of 6

Schedule

Community

4.45

4.77

3.77

4.23

12 - KGM's schedule is kept current and is well coordinated with theirwork plans and activities.

13 - WSDOT and KGM understand the importance of meeting criticalproject milestones.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


4.50

4.59

3.92

3.54

14 - WSDOT and KGM work together to fully inform the public on projectactivities.

15 - WSDOT and KGM are good neighbors with corridor stakeholders.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00



6 of 6

Teamwork

4.59

4.59

4.32

4.32

4.45

4.59

4.27

4.45

4.68

3.62

3.85

3.85

4.08

3.92

4.46

3.69

3.69

4.00

16 - I would recommend this project to a friend or relative as a goodplace to work.

17 - This project is performing well and stresses teamwork andpartnering to accomplish its goals.

18 - WSDOT and KGM promote a positive and enjoyable workingenvironment, we have fun.

19 - KGM and WSDOT share a sense of accomplishment when goals areachieved.

20 - WSDOT and KGM work together to identify and resolve issues.

21 - I am clear on my decision-making authority.

22 - Timely decisions are made to support the project, issues are beingresolved at the lowest possible level.

23 - The project promotes open communication between all parties.

24 - Ethical standards of conduct, integrity, and honesty are evident at alllevels of the project.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00



1 of 6

Answer options: Response % Response CountKGM 63% 22WSDOT 37% 13Total 100% 35

What organization do you represent?

KGM 22

63%

WSDOT 13

37%


2 of 6

Answer options: Response % Total WSDOT KGMBellevue 51% 18 10 8Kenmore 0% 0 0 0Medina 49% 17 3 14Total 100% 35 13 22

Answer options: Response % Total WSDOT KGM0 months --> 1 year 14% 5 0 5More than 1 year 86% 30 13 17Total 100% 35 13 22

At which site do you spend the majority of your workday?

How long have you been with the SR 520 Bridge & Landings Project?

10

0 3

8

0

14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Bellevue Kenmore Medina

WSDOT KGM

0

13

5

17

0 months --> 1 Year More than 1 year0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

WSDOT KGM


3 of 6

Safety

Quality

4.82

4.86

4.68

4.38

4.38

4.38

1 - Safety issues are identified and are quickly and adequately resolvedby WSDOT and KGM

2 - Safety is emphasized regularly by WSDOT and KGM. We care aboutthe Safety of our People.

3 - We make Safety Personal

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


4.36

4.50

4.32

4.50

3.54

3.38

3.38

3.54

4 - WSDOT and KGM strive for the highest value possible while meetingor exceeding standards in all areas of the project

5 - Adequate resources and procedures are in place to ensure the projectmeets the quality goals

6 - We build things right the first time.

7 - Quality issues and trends are identified and are quickly andadequately resolved.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


The 520 Floating Bridge & Landings Project is focused on partnering to improve quality, minimize cost and eliminate disputes. This quarterly survey is one tool to guage the health of the partnership. OVERALL: * 35 participants completed surveys * The survey rating scale is 1 through 5. The lowest a question can be rating is "1" and the highest is "5". If a participant rated any question as "3" or below they were requested to give feedback as to why they rated lower.


4 of 6

Compliance

Cost

4.59

4.86

3.69

3.85

8 - KGM and WSDOT work together to meet all environmental,regulatory and permit requirements.

9 - This project team is acting as a good steward of the environment.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


4.18

4.41

3.62

4.23

10 - KGM and WSDOT work together to mitigate risk and minimizeunnecessary cost.

11 - WSDOT and KGM have an excellent understanding of the project andestablish priorities accordingly.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00



5 of 6

Schedule

Community

4.45

4.77

3.77

4.23

12 - KGM's schedule is kept current and is well coordinated with theirwork plans and activities.

13 - WSDOT and KGM understand the importance of meeting criticalproject milestones.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


4.50

4.59

3.92

3.54

14 - WSDOT and KGM work together to fully inform the public on projectactivities.

15 - WSDOT and KGM are good neighbors with corridor stakeholders.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00



6 of 6

Teamwork

4.59

4.59

4.32

4.32

4.45

4.59

4.27

4.45

4.68

3.62

3.85

3.85

4.08

3.92

4.46

3.69

3.69

4.00

16 - I would recommend this project to a friend or relative as a goodplace to work.

17 - This project is performing well and stresses teamwork andpartnering to accomplish its goals.

18 - WSDOT and KGM promote a positive and enjoyable workingenvironment, we have fun.

19 - KGM and WSDOT share a sense of accomplishment when goals areachieved.

20 - WSDOT and KGM work together to identify and resolve issues.

21 - I am clear on my decision-making authority.

22 - Timely decisions are made to support the project, issues are beingresolved at the lowest possible level.

23 - The project promotes open communication between all parties.

24 - Ethical standards of conduct, integrity, and honesty are evident at alllevels of the project.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


Partnering Survey Comments – February 2016

Question # Comments Question 7 - Safety • I have always been impressed with the safety culture KGM and

WSDOT promote on this project. • With demolition operations starting, even greater care needs to be

taken to ensure safety of the employees and traveling public. • I neither disagree nor agree with safety statements.

Question 12 - Quality • WSDOT Quality resolution process is far to slow, we need decision makers not people dragging their feet.

• There have been instances where some work activities have had to be redone. During the weeks leading up to the opening of the new bridge there were some quality issues that were not quickly and adequately resolved.

• For the most part quality items are addressed. The anchor cable and grout pad issues have lowered my score in this area but I still feel the quality manager is doing a good job and managing the close-out operation well. I still think WSDOT, KGM and the craft all consider the quality of the work to be important.

• Overall quality is pretty good, but two significant outstanding issues associated with the low-rise grout pads and damaged anchor cables are concerning.

• #5 - QA is not sufficiently staffed or have a personal interest in quality of the work. #6 - There is an appearance that schedule is king and rework (if needed) is OK and more cost effective.

• Quality oversight by QA on electrical is not meeting RFP requirements. Electrical inspector cannot perform all inspection duties.

• It bums me out when something does not get installed per contract and KGM offers an absurd amount for a refund for non-conforming items. KGM is here take this $1,000 dollars for the work we did not perform when they know full well it would cost them 20 to 30,000 dollars to fix. The reason given why they don’t want to fix it? If we rip this out and install it the correct way it would be worse. I think that if you don’t meet the requirement then we should ask you to put another bid in to fix it like a change order, and then start the money talks from there. Remember we already paid you to install it correctly the first time…

Question 6 – Environment/Compliance

• Several opportunities were encountered during Environmental walks.

• Although we do not always agree, as a whole the team is working to be a good steward of the environment.

• Demolition operations will be a challenge to complete without impacting the public and resulting in environmental issues.

• Neither disagree nor Agree. Question 7 - Cost • WSDOT sometimes does not budge on high-cost items for better,

less expensive alternatives. • KGM works very hard to mitigate risk and cost to KGM. For the

constructive feedback part. Every item they you don’t install something per plan it puts the state at risk maybe not the 1st year from completion but what about the 15th, 30th, 65th and 75th years?

Question 8 - Schedule • Neither disagree nor agree. Question 9 - Community • How well did strong arming Kenmore work out for you. You can do it

to your subs but you cant treat every one like your subs. Improvment would be transpartent. If you missed something in the contract don't try and find a work that may mean something and make a good story as to "Well this is what I ment".

Question 10 - Team Work

• Would be nice to have a WSDOT/KGM TEAM lunch to celebrate demo milestone(s). Believe this may lead to improved (increase) TEAM energy.

• Problems are not hardly ever solved quickly by WSDOT personnel. • Communications between the contractor and WSDOT for MFDC and

FDC was lacking at time. • It’s really hard when the team is one sided.