Fillable Printable Contractor Evaluation Form - Florida

Contractor Evaluation Form - Florida

Florida DEP - Division of Waste Management - Petroleum Restoration Program

INTERIM CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Interim Contractor Performance Evaluation Form # 01

(Effective Date of Rule)

Incorporated in 62-772.300(6) Page 1 of 10

Contractor Name: ____________________________________________ Contractor ID No: ______________

Check One: ____ Project Interim Review or ____ Project Completion Review

Contract No.: __________ Purchase Order (PO) No.: __________ Task Assignment (TA) No.: __________

Evaluation Period: _______________ to: _______________ DEP Facility No.: ___________________

Facility/Project Name & Address: _______________________________________________________________

Description of Work Performed for TA/PO: _______________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Evaluator Name: ___________________________ Team/LP: ______ Position Title: _________________

Evaluator’s Signature: _________________________________ Evaluation Date: _____________

Interim Performance Ranking*:

____ Top Performer ____ Good Performer ____ Acceptable Performer ____ Poor Performer

I. *Interim Performance Ranking: is derived from the Interim Performance Rating outlined below that is

based on the corresponding contractor rating details in section II, the contractor evaluation questionnaire in

section III and the contractor performance category descriptions in section IV.

Performance Category

Rating

Weight

Factor

Weighted

Rating

Ranking

Top

Performer:

Overall Weighted Rating of 2.75 to 3.0

Good

Performer:

Overall Weighted Rating of 2.0 to 2.75

(with no “0” un-weighted ratings)

Acceptable

Performer:

Overall Weighted Rating of 1.25 to 2.0

(with no “0” un-weighted ratings)

Poor

Performer:

Overall Weighted rating of < 1.25

(or any “0” un-weighted ratings)

1. Quality & Accuracy of the Work

20%

2. Timeliness of the Work

10%

3. Financial & Progress Reports

10%

4. Invoicing

10%

5. Communication

15%

6. Cost Control

15%

7. Technical Competence

20%

Overall Weighted Interim Performance Rating:

(sum of weighted ratings for all categories)

Interim Performance Ranking:

___ Poor

___ Acceptable

___ Good

___ Top

II. Evaluation Details: In the terms of each category description, provide details below from the specific

project and evaluation period to support the performance rating. Include a summary of any comments

Florida DEP - Division of Waste Management - Petroleum Restoration Program

INTERIM CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Interim Contractor Performance Evaluation Form # 01

(Effective Date of Rule)

Incorporated in 62-772.300(6) Page 2 of 10

received from the site owner/RP pertaining to contractor performance and also incorporate those into the

details and rating for each category.

1. Quality & Accuracy of the Work: Rating = ___ Details:

2. Timeliness of the Work: Rating = ___ Details:

3. Financial & Progress Reports: Rating = ___ Details:

4. Invoicing: Rating = ___ Details:

5. Communication: Rating = ___ Details:

6. Cost Control: Rating = ___ Details:

7. Technical Competence: Rating = ___ Details:

Summary of Responsible Party Comments: Based on an interview with the Responsible Party, summarize

their comments in regard to each of the seven contractor performance evaluation categories, as well as their

response to the two questions below.

1. Comments for evaluation categories:

2. Overall did the contractor complete the task assignment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Party?

Yes No

If no, explain.

3. Did the Responsible Party raise any specific reasons why the Department should not release payment of

the retainage for the task assignment to the contractor under the terms of the contract? Yes No

If yes, explain.

Florida DEP - Division of Waste Management - Petroleum Restoration Program

INTERIM CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Interim Contractor Performance Evaluation Form # 01

(Effective Date of Rule)

Incorporated in 62-772.300(6) Page 3 of 10

III. Contractor Performance Evaluation Questionnaire

1. Quality and Accuracy: Quality, sufficiency, and accuracy of contract-required work, including work

or tasks performed by subcontractors.

a. Was the contractor familiar with Chapter 62-772 and 62-780, F.A.C., and all 0 1 2 3

other program technical guidance? n/a

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, No = 0)

b. Did the contractor provide an adequate number of qualified personnel? 0 1 2 3

(Yes = 3, For 75% of the tasks = 2, For 50% of the tasks = 1, For less than n/a

50% of the tasks = 0)

c. Were the contractor’s personnel knowledgeable, coordinated and efficient? 0 1 2 3

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, No = 0) n/a

d. Did the contractor assess the site adequately and efficiently to be able to 0 1 2 3

properly evaluate cleanup and/or site closure options? n/a

(Yes = 3, Minor additional assessment needed = 2, Additional assessment

needed = 1, Significant additional assessment needed = 0)

e. Did the contractor perform a detailed file review to fully understand the site 0 1 2 3

history prior to preparing their Task Assignment proposals? n/a

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat =1, No = 0)

f. Did the contractor anticipate possible obstacles and schedule field work 0 1 2 3

accordingly? n/a

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, No = 0)

g. How would you characterize site owner/RP comments pertaining to contractor 0 1 2 3

performance in this category? n/a

(Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Slightly Negative = 1, Strongly Negative = 0)

Section Total = _______

Section Score (Section Total / No. of Relevant Questions) = _______

2. Project Timeliness: Timeliness with respect to completing contract-required task assignments and

work, including work performed by subcontractors.

a. Did the contractor complete tasks/deliverables within the approved timeframes? 0 1 2 3

(Yes = 3, Within 1 week = 2, Within 2 weeks = 1, Within >2 weeks = 0) n/a

b. Did the contractor respond to unanticipated problems or issues in a timely 1 2 3

manner? n/a

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, No = 0)

c. Did the contractor respond to DEP requests satisfactorily and in a timely 0 1 2 3

manner? n/a

Florida DEP - Division of Waste Management - Petroleum Restoration Program

INTERIM CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Interim Contractor Performance Evaluation Form # 01

(Effective Date of Rule)

Incorporated in 62-772.300(6) Page 4 of 10

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat =1, No = 0)

d. How would you characterize site owner/RP comments pertaining to contractor 0 1 2 3

performance in this category? n/a

(Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Slightly Negative = 1, Strongly Negative = 0)

Section Total = _______

Section Score (Section Total / No. of Relevant Questions) = _______

3. Invoicing: Accuracy, adequacy, and timeliness of invoices, subcontractor payments and other related

documents.

a. Did the contractor submit complete and correct invoices, including all required 0 1 2 3

backup documentation and change orders? n/a

(Yes = 3, Average of 1 error or missing item = 2, Average of 2 errors or

missing items = 1, Average of >2 errors or missing items = 0)

b. Were the invoices submitted within 30 days of receipt of written approval of 0 1 2 3

interim and final deliverables? n/a

(Yes = 3, Within 1 week of deadline = 2, Within 2 weeks of deadline = 1,

Within >2 weeks of deadline = 0)

c. Did the contractor pay subcontractors within required timeframe? 0 1 2 3

(Yes = 3, No = 0) n/a

d. How would you characterize site owner/RP comments pertaining to contractor 0 1 2 3

performance in this category? n/a

(Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Slightly Negative = 1, Strongly Negative = 0)

Section Total = _______

Section Score (Section Total / No. of Relevant Questions) = _______

4. Reports: Accuracy, adequacy, and timeliness of contract-required activity/progress reports,

notifications, technical reports and other required documents.

a. Were the contractor’s proposal and reports submitted in the required format 0 1 2 3

(electronic and hard copy)? n/a

(Yes = 3, No = 0)

b. Were the contractor’s proposal, technical reports and deliverables well written, 0 1 2 3

accurate and complete? n/a

(Yes = 3, Minor errors or missing items = 2, Several errors or missing items,

including data tables or maps = 1, Significant errors or missing items, or data

interpretation was not correct = 0)

c. Did the contractor provide the necessary professional review and certification 0 1 2 3

when required? n/a

(Yes = 3, No = 0)

Florida DEP - Division of Waste Management - Petroleum Restoration Program

INTERIM CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Interim Contractor Performance Evaluation Form # 01

(Effective Date of Rule)

Incorporated in 62-772.300(6) Page 5 of 10

d. Was the contractor responsive to suggestions, comments or modifications 0 1 2 3

regarding work plans, reports or projects? n/a

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, No = 0)

e. Did the contractor submit reports within the approved timeframes? 0 1 2 3

(Yes = 3, Within 2 weeks = 2, Within 1 month = 1, Within >1 month = 0) n/a

f. Did the contractor submit required time extension requests with justification 0 1 2 3

prior to missing report due dates? n/a

(Yes = 3, No = 0)

g. Did the contractor provide legible and detailed field notes documenting work 0 1 2 3

performed and on-site personnel? n/a

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, Not provided or not consistent with the

report = 0)

h. How would you characterize site owner/RP comments pertaining to contractor 0 1 2 3

performance in this category? n/a

(Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Slightly Negative = 1, Strongly Negative = 0)

Section Total = _______

Section Score (Section Total / No. of Relevant Questions) = _______

5. Communication: Contractor’s accessibility, responsiveness, and cooperativeness with respect to any

contract-related concerns communicated by the Contract Manager or Site Manager; plus

contractor’s demonstrated relationship with and direction of subcontractors.

a. Was the contractor cooperative and readily accessible? 0 1 2 3

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, No = 0) n/a

b. Did the contractor consistently and clearly communicate project status and 0 1 2 3

issues to the DEP and subcontractors? n/a

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, No = 0)

c. Did the contractor respond to questions or concerns raised by the project 0 1 2 3

manager in a concise and efficient manner? n/a

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, No = 0)

d. Did the contractor provide field event notifications within the required time 0 1 2 3

frame? n/a

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, No = 0)

e. How would you characterize site owner/RP comments pertaining to contractor 0 1 2 3

performance in this category? n/a

(Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Slightly Negative = 1, Strongly Negative = 0)

Florida DEP - Division of Waste Management - Petroleum Restoration Program

INTERIM CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Interim Contractor Performance Evaluation Form # 01

(Effective Date of Rule)

Incorporated in 62-772.300(6) Page 6 of 10

Section Total = _______

Section Score (Section Total / No. of Relevant Questions) = _______

6. Cost Control: Contractor’s demonstrated performance of cost control effectiveness and budget

management.

a. Was the original scope of the project completed within the agreed upon price 0 1 2 3

or cost with no loss of quality? n/a

(Yes = 3, Within 5% = 2, >5% to 10% above = 1, >10% above = 0)

b. Was the scope of work well defined prior to conducting field activities? 0 1 2 3

(Yes = 3, Minor modification required = 2, Modification required = 1, n/a

Significant modification required = 0)

c. Were the technical details, including permitting, size of excavation, location 0 1 2 3

of equipment compound, sufficient number of wells and/or depth of wells, etc. n/a

correctly estimated prior to submitting the proposal?

(Yes = 3, Minor modification required = 2, Modification required = 1, significant

modification required = 0)

d. Did the contractor submit verbal change orders (VCOs) during the 0 1 2 3

implementation for additional scope that should have been anticipated and n/a

included in the original proposal?

(No = 3, Once = 2, Twice = 1, >2 Times = 0)

e. How would you characterize site owner/RP comments pertaining to contractor 0 1 2 3

performance in this category? n/a

(Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Slightly Negative = 1, Strongly Negative = 0)

Section Total = _______

Section Score (Section Total / No. of Relevant Questions) = _______

7. Technical Competence and Expertise: Contractor’s demonstrated technical competence and expertise

(including competence and expertise of subcontractors); plus contractor’s innovativeness and

willingness to apply, within the limitations of the contract, new techniques or technologies.

a. Did the contractor designate optimal key and perimeter wells and/or sampling 0 1 2 3

parameters and frequency? n/a

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat =1, No = 0)

b. Was the contractor familiar with the latest innovative techniques and solutions? 0 1 2 3

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, No = 0) n/a

c. Did the contractor consider and select the most appropriate technology(s) to 0 1 2 3

bring the site to closure based on the No Further Action (NFA) options with n/a

or without controls specified in Chapter 62-780 and guidance?

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, No = 0)

d. Did the average monthly remediation system run times meet at least 80% of the 0 1 2 3

approved design run time for each major treatment process? n/a

Florida DEP - Division of Waste Management - Petroleum Restoration Program

INTERIM CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Interim Contractor Performance Evaluation Form # 01

(Effective Date of Rule)

Incorporated in 62-772.300(6) Page 7 of 10

(Yes = 3, <80-70% runtime = 2, <70-50% runtime = 1, <50% runtime or

runtime data not provided = 0)

e. Was the average monthly remediation system performance within +20% of the 0 1 2 3

approved design capacity or the optimum capacity observed during startup, n/a

whichever is less, for each of the major treatment processes at the point of

recovery or treatment, including flow rates, vacuum pressures, injection

pressures, etc.?

(Yes = 3, Within >20% to 30% = 2, Within >30% to 50% = 1, Within >50% = 0)

f. Did the Contractor conform to the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance 0 1 2 3

requirements for the remediation equipment? n/a

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, No = 0)

g. Did the Contractor respond to system shutdowns or malfunctions within three 0 1 2 3

business days of discovery or notification by the FDEP/LP, including evaluation n/a

of the problem, minor repairs and re-starts if possible?

(Yes = 3, Within 1 week = 2, Within 2 weeks = 1, Within >2 weeks = 0)

h. Did the Contractor achieve contaminant reductions at or below the established 0 1 2 3

cleanup milestone goals within the time frames approved in the RAP? n/a

(Yes = 3, Up to 25% longer = 2, >25% to 50% longer = 1, >50% longer = 0)

i. Did the Contractor achieve contaminant reductions at or below the established 0 1 2 3

cleanup milestone goals approved in the RAP? * n/a

(Yes = 3, Reached 75% of goal = 2, Reached <75% to 50% of goal = 1,

Reached <50% of goal = 0)

j. Did the contractor submit a detailed PBC proposal which included a 0 1 2 3

comprehensive breakdown of cleanup cost, reasonable milestone payment n/a

schedule, and a rational proposed cost for obtaining the cleanup endpoint?

(Yes = 3, Only 2 of the 3 required components included = 2, Only 1of the 3

required components included = 1, None of the required components included

or provided insufficient detail = 0)

k. Did the contractor achieve all PBC milestones agreed upon? 0 1 2 3

(Yes = 3, Reached 75% of the milestones = 2, Reached <75% to 50% of the n/a

milestones = 1, Reached <50% of the milestones = 0)

l. Did the contractor require direction concerning appropriate technology and 0 1 2 3

solutions? n/a

(No = 3, Minimal direction = 2, Some direction = 1, Significant direction = 0)

m. Did the contractor have knowledge and experience to make on-site adjustments 0 1 2 3

and improvements that would directly result in cost-effective and successful n/a

cleanup?

(Yes = 3, Mostly = 2, Somewhat = 1, No = 0)

Florida DEP - Division of Waste Management - Petroleum Restoration Program

INTERIM CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Interim Contractor Performance Evaluation Form # 01

(Effective Date of Rule)

Incorporated in 62-772.300(6) Page 8 of 10

n. Was the contractor able to locate all of the site wells to abandon when tasked? 0 1 2 3

(Yes = 3, 90% = 2, <90% to 60% = 1, <60% = 0) n/a

o. How would you characterize site owner/RP comments pertaining to contractor 0 1 2 3

performance in this category? n/a

(Positive = 3, Neutral = 2, Slightly Negative = 1, Strongly Negative = 0)

Section Total = _______

Section Score (Section Total / No. of Relevant Questions) = _______

*Milestone Calculation:

Average % Reduction (KW

) = {∑({1-[(C

m1i

-C

)/(C

b1i

-C

)]}*100)

}/n

i=1

Where: KW

= key well number n; n = number of key wells; i = 1, 2, …n; C

m1n

= milestone measurement

concentration of contaminant group in key well n; C

= target level concentration for contaminant group (this

value is calculated by summing the individual Cleanup Target Levels for each contaminant in the group. For

example, if the Target Levels are GCTLs, then for the BTEX + MTBE group this value is 111 µg/l, and for the

Naphthalene group this value is 70 µg/l); and C

b1i

= baseline concentration of contaminant group in key well i.

Page 9 of 10 Interim Perf Eval Form.doc

IV. Contractor Performance Evaluation Category Descriptions

PERFORMANCE