Introduction

Guidelines

Consultant Evaluation Reports

Rating Forms

Category Weighting Criteria

Final Project Average

Rating Review

Use of Consultant Evaluation System Ratings

Design Consultant Evaluation

Planning Evaluation

Construction Evaluation

Structural Evaluation & Bridge Management

Maintenance Evaluation

Asbestos Abatment Evaluation

Consultant Evaluation Rating Form

Introduction

The Consultant Evaluation System (CES) has been developed to provide an objective and consistent method for measuring Consultant performance. The evaluation system benefits both the Department and the Consultant. The rating system provides the Department with a means for rewarding those Consultants who perform good work, provides essential data to be used in the selection process for future projects and also provides Consultants with the opportunity to improve job performance from one rating period to the next. The system is based on objective information, which should lead to fair and intelligent ratings.

Consultant performance on Design projects will be rated in the following categories:

1. Schedule
2. Quality
3. Project Management

The rating criteria for each of the above will be as specifically defined in the Evaluation Forms for each discipline. The Department contracting unit will rate consultant performance, for other work disciplines, in the same general categories (i.e. Schedule, Quality & Project Management), but evaluations may also include work specific checklists. Design project evaluations will include the work for Scope Development, Preliminary Design, Final Design and Construction Phase (Construction Engineering/ Construction Support).

Task Order work for Environmental Investigations and/or Permitting (Wetlands, Cultural Resources, Hazardous Waste, Investigations/ Permits, etc.), performed by a Consultant through a Term Agreement for projects during Scope Development, Preliminary and Final Design will be rated according to the Design Consultant Evaluation (Design Phase) criteria, by the respective NJDOT Contract Manager.

Planning evaluations will include projects in Concept Development and Feasibility Analysis.

Sub-consultant’s work will be rated in the prime Consultant’s rating NOT independently.

Guidelines

The Department’s Consultant Contract Manager (CCM) or contracting unit will submit a Consultant Evaluation Project Information Form (PIF) to the Division of Quality Management Services (QMS) with any of the following executed documents:

• Notice to Proceed
• Interim Agreement/ Letter of Intent
• Consultant Agreement for start of a new project
• Consultant Agreement Modification to initiate a new phase of work

Submission of the PIF notifies QMS that consultant evaluations for the agreement will be required and identifies the Departmental unit or units involved in rating the Consultant during the life of the contract. The CCM or contracting unit will submit a revised PIF with each change in scope of services whenever additional units of the Department will be involved in rating the Consultant.

The following will be available with the Department’s solicitation for Technical Expressions:

• Procedure for consultant evaluations
• Evaluation Report Forms
• Weighting Criteria

The CCM or contracting unit will evaluate work performance every six months for each professional service contract with concurrence from the Supervisor of the rater. The performance rating will be established from the Consultant Evaluation Report (CER) and shall consist of the summation of the scores for the rating categories noted. All consultant evaluations will be due at the same time interval, with the exception of Construction Inspect, which is off set by one month.

An invoiced item of work, such as submission of contract documents or completion of a task, will be considered as an item to be rated. If an invoiced item of work or task has not occurred within the six-month rating period, or if the Consultant has not performed sufficient work to complete a rating, then the rater will check Rating Not Required on the CER form. If an invoiced item of work occurs prior to the rating due date, the CCM will perform the rating and retain the evaluation form in the file until the rating is due.

After the six-month rating has been submitted, additional or revised ratings will not be accepted by QMS for inclusion in that rating period.

Consultant Evaluation Reports

The rating key for consultant evaluations shall be as follows:

5 = outstanding performance
4 = above satisfactory performance
3 = satisfactory performance
2 = below satisfactory performance
1 = unacceptable performance

The six-month rating for satisfactory performance by a Consultant will be 3. Quality Assurance Reviews and Departmental Review checklists will be used as a basis for preparation of the consultant evaluations and serve as back-up data to substantiate the rating. The CCM or contracting unit will provide reasoning and documentation for all ratings. The Consultant Evaluation Report includes a Comments section for use by the CCM or contracting unit for commendatory or critical comments.

For any rating lower than 3 (satisfactory), the Consultant may be required to provide the CCM or contracting unit with a written corrective action plan indicating the manner in which the firm intends to resolve problems and issues concerning the rating and how it intends to prevent their recurrence on future projects.

Rating Forms

The Consultant ratings will be based upon the criteria and weights of the appropriate work disciplines, indicated below:

• Design - Scope Development/ Preliminary & Final Design/Construction Phase/ Overall Quality
• Planning
• Construction Inspection
• Structural Evaluation & Bridge Management
• Maintenance

The evaluations for Design contracts will be project specific and prepared by the appropriate CCM. All other evaluations may be project specific or agreement specific and prepared by the Department contracting unit.

Category Weighting Criteria

Prior to beginning work, the rating criteria and forms will be discussed to assure understanding by all parties. The rating forms will include the applicable category weight percentages that total 100 percent. The applicable weight criteria indicated below will be used by all contracting units and may not be modified.

For Design projects, the percentages indicated for “Design Phase” will be applicable for all six month rating periods up to the Award of Project (construction). When the design consultant is retained by the department to perform Construction Engineering (CE) services, a rating will be performed for the CE (Design - Construction Phase) effort, with the weight factors indicated for “Design - Construction Phase”.

Subsequent to the 70-90% construction complete meeting, the rating for Design Phase shall include the Rating Category OVERALL QUALITY - CONSTRUCTABILITY OF THE DESIGN. This category rates the completeness and quality of the consultant’s contract documents. There is no weight percentage for this category; it shall be rated as appropriate and added to the cumulative weighted total of the Design Phase ratings. The Overall Quality rating shall be factored into the project’s final rating calculation and will count as three ratings. That is, if a project’s Overall Quality rating is a 4.0, then it will be multiplied by three, for a total value of 12. The Overall Quality rating also includes the project’s latest three Design rating values. The average is calculated by dividing the sum by six, as illustrated in the following example:

Final project rating average  = [(rating 1 + rating 2 + rating 3) + (Overall Quality rating x 3)]/6

Weight Factors

NOTE:  The above rating categories and weight factors will be used for all Maintenance related agreements - Engineering/ Inspection; Hazardous Investigation and RI/FS; Asbestos Abatement.

Calculation of Ratings

Rating scores will be determined from the Consultant Evaluation Report. A Consultant’s Total Weighted Category Rating will be determined as follows:

Category Rating x Weight Factor = Weighted Category Rating

Summation of Weighted Category Ratings = Total Weighted Category Rating

The following is an example of a six-month rating for a Design Project in Design Phase as shown in the Rating portion of the Consultant Evaluation Report form:

Consultant:  A & E Consultants, Inc., Project:  Route 23, Contract No. 045962100

The following is an example of a final rating for the Design Phase of a design project subsequent to the 70-90% construction complete meeting, as shown in the Rating portion of the Consultant Evaluation Report form:

Consultant:  A & E Consultants, Inc., Project:  Route 23, Contract No. 045962100

Final Project Average

After the last invoiced item or task has been evaluated, a Final Project Average will be determined for each project or agreement. The Final Project Average will be the average of all six-month ratings in the system for the particular project or agreement.

For Design projects, the Consultant will continue to receive six month ratings through construction of the project as required for Construction Engineering Services (Design - Construction Phase), until an Overall Quality rating is determined from the results of the 70-90% construction complete meeting.

The final Design Project Average will be calculated using the averages of the six-month Design Phase & Construction Phase ratings, including the 70 to 90% (construction complete meeting) Overall Quality rating.

The following are examples of FINAL ratings for the Design Discipline:

Example No. 1

Outstanding (5) & Above Satisfactory (4) Performance:

Using the above project ratings, the Final Project Average is calculated as follows:

[(5 + 4 + 4) + (5 x 3)]/6   = 4.7

FINAL (Design) Project Average = 4.7

Example No. 2

Above Satisfactory (4)  and Satisfactory Performance (3):

Using the above project ratings, the Final Project Average is calculated as follows:

[(4 + 4 + 4) + (3 x 3)]/6   = 3.5

FINAL (Design) Project Average = 3.5

Example No. 3

Satisfactory (3) & Below Satisfactory (2) Performance:

Using the above project ratings, the Final Project Average is calculated as follows:

[(3 + 3 + 2) + (3 x 3)]/6   = 2.8

FINAL (Design) Project Average  =        2.8

A Design Discipline average would then be computed for the consultant firm. Utilizing the above example project ratings, the (Design) Discipline Average will be as follows:

DESIGN DISCIPLINE RATINGS:

Project No. 1:                 4.7
Project No. 2:                 3.5
Project No. 3:                 2.8

CONSULTANT DESIGN DISCIPLINE AVERAGE = 3.7

Rating Review

For any rating lower than satisfactory, the consultant may request a rating review within 35 days from receipt of the rating. A written request by the Consultant should be made to the Director of the contracting unit indicating the reason or reasons for the review request. A debriefing meeting will be scheduled by the Director of the contracting unit to discuss the rating.

The Director of the contracting unit, the CCM or rater of the contracting unit and his Supervisor, the Consultant PM and Consultant Principal in Charge will be required to attend the meeting.

Use of Consultant Evaluation System Ratings

With the establishment of CES ratings, a Consulting firm’s performance with the Department over a two-year period may be easily and carefully assessed. The ratings for past performance will be utilized to rate the Firm Capability portion of the Technical Proposals for new projects. Consultants will be rated in the seven disciplines noted in this manual.

Ratings will be generated for each Consultant based on the firm’s ratings in the system in the following manner:

For DESIGN PROJECTS, ratings will remain in the system for a period of two (2) years AFTER completion of the project’s construction (i.e. completion of the Overall Quality rating).

All other Discipline Ratings will be in the system for a current two-year period (4 six-month rating cycles) following completion of the project’s Final Rating.

The respective Contract Manager(s) will perform the ratings for their respective projects/contracts, and compute the total weighted category rating, per the “Consultant Evaluation Report” (rating form) included in this CES Manual. Quality Management Services (QMS) will compute Project Averages, Discipline Averages and Consultant Overall Averages. These ratings/averages will be maintained in a CES database, administered by QMS.

If a Consulting firm with a current Discipline rating, expresses interest in performing the work of other disciplines for which it is prequalified but has no established ratings, the Department will apply the established rating for past performance during Department review of the Technical Proposals. The Consultant’s current rating will be used until the firm establishes other Discipline ratings.

If a Consulting firm has performed prior work with the Department, but has not acquired ratings for the current two year rating period, the Consultant’s rating will become the “system average” for the applicable discipline. The system average is defined as the average of all current ratings in the system for the applicable discipline.

If a Consulting firm has no prior work with the Department, the Consultant will receive the system average rating for the applicable discipline until ratings by the firm are established.

Note 1:  Design Discipline FINAL RATINGS will be calculated using Design Phase rating averages, Construction Phase averages, and Overall Quality ratings, as required to compute the final project average. Accordingly, all project ratings shall apply, not just the “current two year ratings”. For example, a design project that has a two year design phase and a two year construction phase, will not be rated simply on a two year cycle, since the first two years’ ratings (design phase) would be moot, and the consultant would, in effect, be rated on only the Construction Phase. Therefore, the final rating for the design discipline, will incorporate all applicable rating averages, regardless of the ratings’ “age”. This will provide a final rating that is relevant to the entire project effort.

Design Consultant Evaluation

(Design Phase)

I.  Schedule

The work performed satisfies the scope of services and the schedule commitments. Tasks are performed in a logical order. Work is completed along the critical path where critical path activities receive the highest priority without neglecting other concurrent activities. The work performed does not require more than one resubmission for corrections. A resubmission for corrections shall not result in a schedule delay. This rating will not reflect factors outside the Consultant’s control, such as, changes made by the Department to the scope of services.

Rating

II.  Quality

Consultant’s Errors and Omissions/ Corrective Work.

Work submitted should not require changes due to inaccuracies in technical presentation or Consultant errors or omissions. Corrective work should not require repeated resubmissions to the Department.

Rating

III.  Project Management

Rates the management; not the individual(s) serving in the position.

The Consultant Project Management:

• is organized and proficient with administrative, procedural and technical skills.
• performs the work of the project as required in the Scope of Services and as directed by the CCM.
• supervises the progress of the work of his staff and that of his Sub-consultants.
• is proficient with verbal and written communications skills.
• is cooperative with the Department and/or joint operating agencies involved with the project.
• keeps the CCM advised of general matters and also identifies and works to resolve problems that arise.
• is available for Department phone calls and meetings.
• receives Department approval prior to making any changes to the Consultant Contract Management or team structure established through the agreement.

Rating

Category Weight 30%

Design Consultant Evaluation

(Construction Phase)

Revised 10/5/99 per DAG comments

I.  Schedule

Consultants Responsiveness to the Needs of Construction

The Consultant performs the Construction Engineering (CE) support functions described in the agreement such as, shop drawing review, response to construction questions on design issues, required paperwork, preparation of Change of Plans for unforeseen conditions, and other pertinent requests of the CCM in a timely and professional manner. Each CE support function requested of the Consultant shall be considered a “Task Assignment”.

The Department CCM and the Consultant will mutually establish reasonable schedules for completion (submissions/responses) of each Task Assignment. The scheduled due date(s) will be established and documented on a case-by-case base.

Rating Guideline:

The Department CCM and the Consultant will mutually establish reasonable schedules for submissions/responses to each Task Assignment. Each CE Task Assignment will be tracked (assignment date to completion date) by the CCM.

The Consultant’s deliverables should be completed on or before the agreed upon scheduled date(s). The appropriate rating will be based on the number of Task Assignments and the delivery date versus the agreed upon due date. No weight shall be applied to the complexity of a given Task Assignment; this rating is predicated on establishing schedules that are appropriate to the complexity of the task, and the mutually agreed upon turn around time from assignment date to completion date.

Rating

5   There were no late deliverables
4   There were 1 to 3 late deliverables
3   There were 4 to 6 late deliverables
2   Multiple late deliverables. Contractor placed Department on notice or filed claim
1   Department extended a milestone date (i.e. contract completion date due to delays in deliverables)

Category Weight 60%

II.  Quality

Identification of Quality of contract documents during construction

Quality Control is the primary responsibility of the design service provider. There are specific requirements in the Agreement between the State and the provider regarding indemnification. There is also what is generally understood in the engineering section of the Agreement as “reasonable standard of care.” Design Service providers also are required to have approved QA/QC procedures on file with the Department.

When during the course of construction there are deviations in accepted quality control standards, the design provider is to be notified within the attached “Deficiency Notification”. These deviations may be of such a magnitude that the State may experience additional costs above which would not have been experienced had the contract documents been accurate. For this case, the design provider is to be notified as shown in attachment #2.

Examples of deviations where notifications are to be issued:

• Incorrect quantities
• Missing pay items
• Survey busts
• Incorrect elevations
• Geometric errors
• Inconsistencies between plans and specifications
• Change of plans errors
• Incorrect specifications

Prior to releasing the notification, verify the need with your Program Manager

Rating

5   There were no notification deficiencies issued this rating period.
4   There was 1 affirmed notification deficiency issued this rating period.
3   There were 2 affirmed notification deficiencies issued this rating period.
2   There were 3 - 5 affirmed notification deficiencies issued this rating period.
1   There were more than 5 affirmed notification deficiencies issued this rating period.

Category Weight 30%

III.  Project Management

Rates the management; NOT the individual(s) serving in the position

The Consultant Project Management:

• is organized and proficient with administrative, procedural and technical skills.
• performs the work of the project as required in the Scope of Services and as directed by the CCM.
• supervises the progress of the work of his staff and that of his Sub-consultants.
• is proficient with verbal and written communications skills.
• is cooperative with the Department and/or joint operating agencies involved with the project.
• keeps the CCM advised of general matters and also identifies and works to resolve problems that arise.
• is available for Department phone calls and meetings.
• receives Department approval prior to making any changes to the Consultant Contract Management or team structure established through the agreement.
• completes work at the time frame noted in the Agreement with no impact on the construction cost or schedule.
• manages the budget within existing ceilings.
• notifies the Department prior to the occurrence of extra or additional work.

Rating

5   Has met all of the above requirements.  No improvement needed.
4   Above average performance, does not meet one of the above requirements.
3   Average performance does not meet two of the above requirements.
2   Below average performance, does not meet three of the above requirements.
1   Does not meet three of the above requirements and/or the Department requires a change of the Consultant Contract Management.

Category Weight 10%

Design – Construction Phase

Consultant Evaluation

Deficiency Notification (doc 19k)

Design Consultant Evaluation

Overall Quality

(TO BE COMPLETED SUBSEQUENT TO THE 70-90% CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE MEETING)

I.  Overall Quality

This section may be differed if there are outstanding claims issues, which will affect the final rating.

Errors and/or omissions rated herein shall only be based on those:

• which result in a legal settlement where the designer has a financial component;
• which the designer has accepted liability;
• which a change order has been executed that the Project Manager has signed form “Construction Change Order Catalog” and marked “J”;
• and as a result of the error and omission, the Department has incurred additional costs which would not have been incurred had the contract document been correct.

Rating

Category Weight 100%

Planning Consultant Evaluation

Planning Overall Quality Performance Form (doc 50k)

I.  Schedule

The work performed satisfies the scope of services and the schedule commitments. Tasks are performed in a logical order. Work is completed along the critical path where critical path activities receive the highest priority without neglecting other concurrent activities. The work performed does not require more than one resubmission for corrections. A resubmission for corrections shall not result in a schedule delay. This rating will not reflect factors outside the Consultant’s control, such as, changes made by the Department to the scope of services.

Rating

Category Weight 30%

II.  Overall Quality

Based on the attached Performance Checklist responses and using the rating system noted below, work submitted is responsive, technically accurate, showing innovation and flexibility. Work will also provide effective public involvement and evaluate appropriate Multi-modal/supply and demand strategies.

Rating

5   Consultant received 100% “yes” or N/A ratings.
4   Consultant received between 85% and 99.9% “yes” ratings.
3   Consultant received between 84.9% and 75% “yes” ratings.
2   Consultant received between 74.9% and 65% “yes” ratings.
1   Consultant received 64.9% and below “yes” ratings.

Category Weight 40%

III.  Project  Management

Rates the management; NOT the individual(s) serving in the position

The Consultant Project Management:

• is organized and proficient with administrative, procedural and technical skills.
• performs the work of the project as required in the Scope of Services and as directed by the CCM.
• supervises the progress of the work of his staff and that of his Sub-consultants.
• is proficient with verbal and written communications skills.
• is cooperative with the Department and/or joint operating agencies involved with the project.
• keeps the CCM advised of general matters and also identifies and works to resolve problems that arise.
• is available for Department phone calls and meetings.
• receives Department approval prior to making any changes to the Consultant Contract Management or team structure established through the agreement.

Rating

Category Weight 30%

Construction Engineering/ Inspection

Consultant Evaluation

Construction Engineering/ Inspection Consultant Performance Overall Quality Form (doc 97k)

II.  Overall Quality

Based on the attached Performance Checklist responses and using the rating system noted below an overall rating is determined.

Rating

5   Consultant received 100 - 95% “yes” or N/A ratings.
4   Consultant received between 94.9 - 85% “yes” ratings.
3   Consultant received between 84.9% and 75% “yes” ratings.
2   Consultant received between 74.9% and 65% “yes” ratings.
1   Consultant received 64.9% and below “yes” ratings.

Category Weight 90%

II.  Project Management.

Rates the management; NOT the individual(s) serving in the position

The Consultant Project Management:

• is organized and proficient with administrative, procedural and technical skills.
• is proficient with verbal and written communications skills.
• has properly staffed and trained inspection personnel in accordance with the Response For Proposal (RFP).
• has properly managed inspection personnel in accordance with the RFP.
• is cooperative with the Department and joint operating agencies.
• is available for Department phone calls and meetings.
• keeps the Department Field Manager or Resident Engineer advised of general matters and also identifies and works to resolve problems that arise.
• receives Department approval prior to making any changes to the Consultant Contract Management or team structure established through the agreement.

Rating

Category Weight 10%

Construction Engineering

Final Consultant Rating Standards

(Effective 9-12-03)

ABBREVIATIONS USED:

CIS -      Consultant Construction Inspection Staff

CM -       Consultant Management (May include the Consultant Project Manager, the Consultant Resident Engineer, the Consultant Assistant Resident Engineer, and the Consultant Chief Inspector. Does not include Consultant Inspectors not in principal charge)

STATE - NJDOT Resident Engineer/ NJDOT Field Manager/ NJDOT Regional Consultant Coordinator

RATING QUESTION #1

Yes:  No major/repetitive field inspection mistakes have occurred in the rating period.

Major is defined as a mistake in inspection that causes a delay in the progress of the contract, causes significant traffic delays or caused the State to incur additional expenses (including utility costs).

Repetitive is defined as a field inspection mistake that occurs more then twice after having been brought to the attention of the CIS.

No:  Major/repetitive field inspection mistakes have occurred in the rating period.

RATING QUESTION #2

Yes:  Reviews by Department personnel note that the CIS is familiar with inspection procedures required by the CPH, specifications, and industry standards.

No:  Reviews by Department personnel note that the CIS is not familiar with inspection procedures (and/or onsite materials testing procedures) required by the specifications, the CPH or industry standards.

RATING QUESTION #3

Yes:  Reviews by Department personnel have found that the CIS can explain the items of work being inspected as well as answer any questions on equipment/materials/procedures required to construct the item of work as noted in the plans and specifications.

No:  Reviews by Department personnel have found that the CIS can’t explain the items of work being inspected as noted in the plans or specifications or a review has found that a completed item or items of work that has/have been inspected by the CIS have not been constructed in accordance with the plans or specifications.

RATING QUESTION #4

Yes:  The CIS can explain the planned items of work as well as answer any questions on equipment/materials/procedures required to construct the item of work as noted in the plans and specifications.

No:  The CIS can’t explain the planned items of work as noted in the plans or specifications or a review has found that a completed item or items of work have not been constructed in accordance with the plans or specifications.

RATING QUESTION #5

Yes:  The CM analyzes problems that occur on the project and recommends or suggests possible solutions to the Department’s representative on the project.

No:  The CM does not analyze problems that occur on the project and/or waits for the Department’s representative on the project to provide solutions to resolve the issue.

RATING QUESTION #6

Yes:  The CIS accurately measures and calculates quantities (to the significant figures required) and submits these measurements within the time frames required in the CPH.

No:  The CIS does not accurately measure and calculate quantities (to the significant figures required) and/or submit these measurements within the time frames required in the CPH.

RATING QUESTION #7

Yes:  A review by Department personnel finds that all Daily Inspectors’ reports are completely filled out in accordance with the CPH, submitted within one day of inspection and are clearly written and easy to understand. Some MINOR errors/omissions may occur but should not happen more than twice (MINOR error/omission would be a mathematical error, leaving the “hours worked” box blank, omitting manpower or equipment. Omitting complete and accurate remarks would NOT be MINOR).

No:  A review by Department personnel finds that Daily Inspectors reports are not completely filled out in accordance with the CPH and/or are difficult to understand. Minor errors/omissions occur more then twice.

RATING QUESTION #8

Yes:  Reviews by Department (including NJSP and FHWA) personnel have always found the CIS has performed and documented a daily safety check by preparing a written daily safety report of the project’s TCP devices and lane closings. The project’s traffic control devices are the correct ones and are properly maintained and the TCP is being followed. Any minor discrepancies in the TCP found by the Office of Capital Program Safety (OCPS) or the NJSP have been addressed quickly. The CIS has notified the contractor of any areas requiring correction.

No:  Reviews by Department personnel have noted improper traffic control devices or that the TCP is not being followed, or that Daily safety reports are not always being performed. Discrepancies in the TCP found by the NJSP or OCPS were not transmitted by the CIS to the contractor to be addressed or the same discrepancies are repetitive and continue to be found on subsequent inspections.

RATING QUESTION #9

Yes:  A review by Department personnel finds that the CIS is familiar with Environmental permits/controls required, monitors the environmental controls on a daily basis and notifies the contractor and /or Departments representative on the project of items requiring correction or additional measures. Daily written Environmental Inspection reports are prepared and are incorporated with the project records.

No:  A review by Department personnel finds the project in noncompliance with permit conditions or finds environmental controls requiring remediation where the contractor and or Departments representative on the project were not notified of the items requiring correction.

RATING QUESTION #10

Yes:  CIS notifies NJDOT Materials of items requiring testing as requested by the contractor or required based upon job progress and tests onsite materials as required by NJDOT procedures. Requests for materials inspections have ALWAYS been faxed to the Regional Materials office before the deadline set by the Regional Materials office. The CIS verifies that all materials being utilized are from an approved source.

No:  CIS does not notify NJDOT Materials of items requiring testing before the deadline set by the Regional Materials office or fails to test onsite materials as required by NJDOT procedures. The contractor utilizes materials on the project that are not from an approved source.

RATING QUESTION #11

Yes:  A review by Department personnel finds that all Daily Project/ Field Diaries are maintained in accordance with the CPH.

No:  A review by Department personnel finds that Daily Project/ Field Diaries are not maintained in accordance with the CPH.

RATING QUESTION #12

Yes:  The CM reviews Contractor claims for additional time/compensation, extra work requested by the contractor for validity with contract provisions or Force Account documentation of extra work, and requested time extensions for justification in accordance with the contractor’s approved baseline schedule or updates.

No:  The CM does not review or performs an incomplete review of Contractor claims, extra work requests, or time extension requests.

RATING QUESTION #13

Yes:  The CM AND the CIS have had no substantiated complaints (rude, incorrect, or untimely {more than 5 business days elapsed between the inquiry and the response} responses to inquiries, unprofessional conduct in person and/or in telephone contacts, et cetera) brought to the STATE from customers and/or agencies (general public, municipal officials, FHWA, DEP, Soil Conservation). The CIS properly refer media inquiries to the STATE.

No:  The STATE received substantiated complaints as described above. Media requests were handled without involvement of the STATE.

RATING QUESTION #14

Yes:  The CM tracks the progress of the project and is in regular contact with the CIS, is aware of when the contractor’s activity level decreases or increases, and initiates consultations with the STATE about reducing or increasing staffing levels when there may be the opportunity due to a change in the activity level on the project.

No:  The CM is not aware of, or does not communicate with the STATE when contractors’ activity levels change substantially and the STATE must initiate reductions or increases to staffing levels.

NOTE:  Make sure to check the appropriate box in question #14 on the rating sheet if the answer to this question is “no”.

RATING QUESTION #15

Yes:  The CM provides training necessary to the CIS related to filling out NJDOT construction forms, NJDOT safety guidelines, and providing familiarity with the Construction Procedures Handbook (CPH).

No:  The CIS was unfamiliar with the basic NJDOT construction inspection procedures and needed to be trained by the STATE.

RATING QUESTION #16

Yes:  Reviews by Department (including NJSP and FHWA) personnel have always found the CIS wearing/utilizing personal protective/safety equipment and have consistently conducted themselves in a safe manner.

No:  Reviews by Department personnel have noted a member or members of the CIS not wearing/utilizing personal protective/safety equipment. The CIS has been cited for unsafe conduct.

RATING QUESTION #17

Yes:  The CM is in thoroughly familiar with the utility work on the project.  The CM is in close contact with utilities working on the project and in close contact with any RE’s on adjacent contracts. The CM acts to coordinate the schedules for all utility work and the work of any adjacent projects for lane closings. The CM acts to coordinate the schedules for all utility work and the work of any adjacent projects to avoid or minimize any delays to the project schedule. The CM coordinates site preparation needs for utilities with his contractor and keeps the utilities informed of the contractor’s updates to the CPM schedule.

No:  The CM does not coordinate the needs of adjacent contracts and/or utilities with his contractor, or does not coordinate utility site preparation needs with his contractor. The CM does not inform the utilities of updates to his project’s CPM schedule.

RATING QUESTION #18

Yes:  The CM reviews the baseline/updated progress schedule and has compared work in progress versus scheduled project progress and after noting time or schedule issues has notified the contractor and the Department’s Project Supervisor of findings requiring explanation or remediation.

No:  The CM either hasn’t reviewed the contractor’s progress schedule versus work in progress, or has reviewed the schedule and has not notified the contractor and/or the Department’s Project Supervisor of findings requiring an explanation or remediation.

RATING QUESTION #19

Yes:  The CIS and NJDOT staff functions as one team.  The CIS fosters a professional relationship with the NJDOT staff with the ultimate goal of delivering the construction project to the motoring public within the terms of contract documents.

No:  The CIS does not foster a professional relationship with the NJDOT staff, which results in the staff not functioning as a single team. 

RATING QUESTION #20

Yes:  A review by Department personnel finds that all Daily/ Weekly reports are filled out in accordance with the CPH and are prepared within timeframes established in the CPH.

No:  A review by Department personnel finds that Daily/ Weekly reports are not filled out in accordance with the CPH and/or are prepared beyond timeframes established in the CPH.

RATING QUESTION #21

Yes:  The CM always submits Contractor payment estimates within 2 days of the specified date unless the contractor requests it be delayed to allow more time for review of a specific item or items. The estimate may be delayed if despite written notice, the contractor fails to meet contractual provisions requiring certain submittals or specific action before the estimate can be submitted.

No:  The CM fails to submit the Contractor’s payment estimate within 2 days of the specified date, where the Contractor’s submittals are up to date and the Contractor has not requested a delay in submittal.

RATING QUESTION #22

Yes:  The CM prepares project correspondence within an appropriate timeframe based upon the nature of the correspondence required. (Routine-3 work-days, Matters impacting job progress-same day, Matters requiring work stoppage or where immediate action is required-within 1 hour)

No:  A review finds that the CM has not prepared project correspondence within the time frames set in the “Yes” area for this question based upon its nature and importance.

RATING QUESTION # 23

Yes:  The CM prepares meeting minutes and distributes them within 5 working days of the meeting. The meeting minutes accurately reflect the discussion(s) and are consistently professional.

No:  The CM either does not prepare meeting minutes or prepares and distributes them more than 5 working days after the meeting. The meeting minutes do not accurately reflect the discussion or are unprofessional.

RATING QUESTION #24

Yes:  The correspondence prepared by the CM doesn’t require significant corrections that impact the intent or factual nature of the correspondence. Some minor spelling or punctuation errors may occur. Correspondence prepared by the CM is consistently comprehensive and professional.

No:  The correspondence prepared by the CM does require significant corrections that impact the intent or factual nature of the correspondence. Correspondence prepared by the CM is difficult to understand and/or unprofessional. The CM does not utilize the correspondence assistance functions (spell check and grammar) in the word processing program being utilized

RATING QUESTION #25

Yes:  A review by Department personnel finds that the projects DBE/EEO documentation is complete and current in accordance with the CPH or the CM has requested any missing information from the contractor on a timely basis. If the contractor fails to respond, the CM notifies the Department’s representative on the project of the need to take further action.

No:  A review by Department personnel finds that the projects DBE/EEO documentation is incomplete and/or not current in accordance with the CPH and the CM has not taken proactive steps to obtain the missing information.

Structural Evaluation & Bridge Management

Consultant Evaluation

Structural Evaluation Bridge Checklist Form (doc 39k)

Structural Evaluation Project Summary Form (doc 73k)

I.  Schedule

The work performed shall be in accordance with the various schedules as stated in the scope of work and the Agreement. The rating will not reflect factors outside the Consultant’s control, such as delays by various authorities, which require right-of-way permits, etc.

Rating

Weight of Category 30%

II.  Overall Quality (Consultant Errors & Omissions/Corrected Work)

Based on the performance checklists, reports submitted should not require changes due to inaccuracies in technical areas of the report or consultant errors or omissions in the Structure Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) Sheets or PONTIS Data. Corrective work should not require repeated submissions to the Department.

Rating

Weight of Category 50%

NOTE:  Resubmission of Structure Inventory and Appraisal, Pontis or Seismic Data does not constitute resubmission of reports for the purpose of evaluating overall quality.

Documented Errors

Project Size

III.  Project Management

Rates the management; NOT the individual(s) serving in the position

The Consultant Project Management:

• is organized and proficient with administrative, procedural and technical skills.
• performs the work of the project as required in the Scope of Services and as directed by the CCM.
• supervises the progress of the work of his staff and that of his Sub-consultants.
• is proficient with verbal and written communication skills.
• is cooperative with the Department and/or joint operating agencies involved with the project.
• keeps the CCM advised of general matters and also identifies and works to resolve problems that arise.
• is available for Department phone calls and meetings.
• receives Department approval prior to making any changes to the Consultant Contract Management or team structure established through the Agreement.

Rating

Weight of Category 20%

Maintenance Consultant Evaluation

Engineering/Inspection

Maintenance Engineering/Inspection Consultant Performance Form (doc 99k)

I.  Overall Quality

Based on the attached Performance Checklist responses and using the rating system noted below an overall rating is determined.

Rating

5   Consultant received 100% “yes” or N/A ratings.
4   Consultant received between 85% and 99.9% “yes” ratings.
3   Consultant received between 84.9% and 75% “yes”
2   Consultant received between 74.9% and 65% “yes” ratings.
1   Consultant received 64.9% and below “yes” ratings.

Category Weight 90%

II.  Project Management

Rates the management; NOT the individual(s) serving in the position

The Consultant Project Management:

• is organized and proficient with administrative, procedural and technical skills.
• is proficient with verbal and written communications skills.
• has properly staffed and trained inspection personnel in accordance with the Response For Proposal (RFP).
• has properly managed inspection personnel in accordance with the RFP.
• is cooperative with the Department and joint operating agencies.
• is available for Department phone calls and meetings.
• keeps the Department Contract Managers or Resident Engineer advised of general matters and also identifies and works to resolve problems that arise.
• receives Department approval prior to making any changes to the Consultant Contract Management or team structure established through the agreement.

Rating

Category Weight 10%

Maintenance Consultant Evaluation

Hazardous Substance Investigation & RI/FS

Hazardous Substance Investigation and RI/FS Consultant Performance Form (doc 55k)

I.  Overall Quality

Based on the attached Performance Checklist responses and using the rating system noted below an overall rating is determined.

Rating

5   Consultant received 100% “yes” or N/A ratings.
4   Consultant received between 85% and 99.9% “yes” ratings.
3   Consultant received between 84.9% and 75% “yes” ratings.
2   Consultant received between 74.9% and 65% “yes” ratings.
1   Consultant received 64.9% and below “yes” ratings.

Category Weight 90%

II.  Project Management

Rates the management; NOT the individual(s) serving in the position

The Consultant Project Management:

• is organized and proficient with administrative, procedural and technical skills.
• is proficient with verbal and written communications skills.
• is cooperative with the Department and regulatory agencies.
• is available for Department phone calls and meetings.
• keeps the Department Contractor Manager advised of general matters and also identifies and works to resolve problems that arise.
• receives Department approval prior to making any changes to the Consultant Contract Management or team structure established through the agreement.

Rating

Category Weight 10%

Asbestos Abatement Evaluation

Hazardous Substance Investigation

Asbestos Abatement Investigations Consultant Performance Form (doc 52k)

I.  Overall Quality

Based on the attached Performance Checklist responses and using the rating system noted below an overall rating is determined.

Rating

5   Consultant received 100% “yes” or N/A ratings.
4   Consultant received between 85% and 99.9% “yes” ratings.
3   Consultant received between 84.9% and 75% “yes” ratings.
2   Consultant received between 74.9% and 65% “yes” ratings.
1   Consultant received 64.9% and below “yes” ratings.

Category Weight 90%

II.  Project Management

Rates the management; NOT the individual(s) serving in the position

The Consultant Project Management:

• is organized and proficient with administrative, procedural and technical skills.
• is proficient with verbal and written communications skills.
• has properly staffed and trained inspection personnel in accordance with the Response For Proposal (RFP).
• has properly managed inspection personnel in accordance with the RFP.
• is cooperative with the Department and joint operating agencies.
• is available for Department phone calls and meetings.
• keeps the Department Field Manager or Resident Engineer advised of general matters and also identifies and works to resolve problems that arise.
• receives Department approval prior to making any changes to the Consultant Contract Management or team structure established through the agreement.

Rating

Category Weight 10%

Revised May 2003