Schedule L-2
City of Oakland
Community & Economic Development Agency
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Project Number/Title: C26913Q-On-Call Citywide Sidewalk Repair For Fiscal Year 2006-2007.
Work Order Number (if applicable): .
Contractor: Rosas Brothers Construction .
Date of Notice to Proceed: 7/28/2008 ^ .
Date of Notice of Completion: 1/22/2010
Date of Notice of Final Completion: 1/22/2010
Contract Amount: $932.040.00
Evaluator Name and Title: David No. Resident Engineer
The City's Resident Engineer most familiar with the Contractor's performance must complete this evaluation and submit it.to Manager, CEDA Project Delivery Division,-within 30 calendar days of the issuance of the Final Payment.
Whenever the Resident Engineer finds the Contractor IS perfornilng below Satisfactory for any category pf the. Evaluation, the Resident Engineer shall 'discuss the perceived performance shortfall at the periodic site meetings with the Contractor. , An Interim Evaluation will be perfprrned if at any time the Resident Engineer finds,that, the overall performance of a Contractor is Marginal or Unsatisfactory. An Interim Evaluation is required, prior to issuance of a Final Evaluation Rating of Unsatisfactory. The Final Evaluation upon Final Completion of the project will supersede interim ratings.
The following |ist provides a basic set of. evaluation criteria that will be applicable to all construction projects awarded by,the City of Oakland that.arQ greater than $.50,000... Narrative responses are-required tp support any evaluation .drlteria!.that are rated as.-Marginal or' Unsatisfactory, and must be attached to this evaluation..-If a. narrative response is required, indicate before each.narrative the number of the question for which the response is being provided. Any availabfe supporting documentation to-justify'any Marginal or Unsatisfactory ratings must also be attached. • . '
If a criterion Is rated Marginal or Unsatisfactory and the rating Is caused by the performance of a subcontractor, the narrative will note this. The narrative will also note the General Contractor's effort to improve the subcontractor's performance.
ASSESSMENTG UIDHLINES:
Outstanding
(3 points)
Performance among the best level of achievement the City has experienced.
Satisfactory
(2 points)
Performance met contractual requirements.
Marginal
(1 point)
•
Performance barely met the lower range of the contractual requirements or performance only met contractual requirements after extensive corrective action was taken.
Unsatisfactory
(0 points)
Performance did not meet contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed reflected serious problems for which corrective actions were ineffective.
C79 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Rosas Brothers Project No. C269130 I
ory c
cab!
c a
_C
'is
tstai
1*
OS
^JU
NIn
WORK PERFORMANCE
1 Did the Contractor perform all of the work with acceptable Quality and Workmanship? • X • •
1a
If problems arose, did the Contractor provide solutions/coordinate with the designers and work proactlvely with the City to minimize impacts? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment. Provide documentation. • • X • • 2 Was the work performed by the Contractor accurate and complete? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment and provide documentation. Complete (2a) and (2b) below. X D •
2a
Were correotipns .requested? If "Yes", specify the date(s) and reason(s) for the correction(s). ^Provide documentation.
Yes ..No
•
N/A
•
2b
. If corrections were requested, did the .Contractor make the corrections requested? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment. Provide documentation. a •O' 3 Was the Contractor responsive to City staff's comments and concerns regarding the work perfdnried or the work product delivered? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on-the attachment. Provide documentation. • D .'•' X . •'• • 4 Were there other significant issues.related to "Work Performance''? If Yes, explain on the attachrheht. ^Provide documentation. Yes
• • -
No
X
5 Did the Cphtractpr cooperate with on-site or adjacent tenants, buslness' owners .:
end residents and .work in such a nianner as to minimize disruptions to the public.
If "Marginal or. Unsatisfactbiy', explain on the attachment. • X • 6 Did the personnel assigned by the Contractor have the expertise and skills required to satisfactorily perform under the contract? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment. • • X • •
7 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on work performance? The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding work performance and the assessment guidelines.
CheckO, 1,2, or3. I
0 •
1 •
2 X
3 • ^^^^^
C80 Contractor Evaluation Forni Contractor: Rosas Brothers Project No. C269130 %
to
c
CD
f
5 o
TIMELINESS
0 I
a
S:
z.
8 Did the Contractor complete the work within the time required by the contract (Including time extensions or amendments)? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment why the work was not completed according to schedule.
Provide documentation.
• • X • •
9 Was the Contractor required to provide a service In accordance with an •'i^i-^j-v^ established schedule (such as for security, maintenance, custodial, etc.)? If "No", ^^yi"*^'i^*iiL or "N/A", go to Question #10. If "Yes", complete (9a) below.
Yes
•
No
X
N/A
•
9a
Were the services provided within the days and times scheduled? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment and specify the dates the Contractor failed to comply with this requirement (such as tardiness, failure to report, etc.).
Provide documentation.
• . • • • •
10,
Did the Contractor provide timely baseline schedules and revisions to Its construction schedule when changes occurred? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment, provide documentation. • . • X • 11 Did the Contractor furnish submittals in a timely manner to allow review by the City so as to not delay the work? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the, . attachment. Provide documentation. • X Q •
12 Were there other significant Issues related to timeliness? If yes, explain on the attachment. F'rovide documentation.. ,
Yes
•
No
X
13 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on timeliness?
The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding timeliness and the assessment guidelines.
CheckO, 1,2, or 3.
•
1 ,
n
"2'.
X •
C81 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Rosas Brothers Project No. C269130 Tl
z >
z
>
r-
Unsatisfactory
Marginal
Satisfactory
Outstanding
Not Applicable
14 Were the Contractor's billings accurate and reflective of the contract payment terms? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment. Provide documentation of occurrences and amounts (such as corrected invoices). • • X • • 15 Were there any claims to increase the contract amount? If "Yes", list the claim amount. Were the Contractor's claims resolved in a manner reasonable to the City?
Number of Claims:
Claim amounts: $
Settlement amount:$
Yes
•
No
X
16 Were the Contractor's price quotes for changed or additional work reasonable? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment.. Provide documentation of occurrences and amounts (such as corrected price quotes). • , •" Q 17 Vyere there any other Significant Issues related to financial issues? If Yes, explain, on the attachrrient and provide documentation.
Yes
• ••
No
X
18 • Overall, how did the Contractor rate on financJal lssges? The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding financial issues and the assessment gjjidelines. . :
CheckO, 1,2, or3.
0 •
2-
X
3 •
C82 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Rosas Brothers Project No. C269130 o
tj
3 CO
tn
c. 3
o CD
C
'P (0
*^ CO CO
EO
O)
c
c
3 o COMMUNICATION
I
-Q.
O
z
19 Was the Contractor responsive to the City's questions, requests for proposal, etc.? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment. • X • • 20 Did the Contractor communicate with City staff clearly and in a timely manner regarding: lilisi
20a
Notification of any significant issues that arose? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment. • X D o
20b
Staffing Issues (changes, replacements, additions, etc.)? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment. • • X • •
20c
Periodic progress reports as required by the contract (both verbal and written)? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment. • • • X 20d Were there any billing disputes? ' If ''Yes", .explain on the attachment. ^^^^^
Yes
•
.No
X
21 Were there any other significant Issues related to communication Issues? Explain on the attachment. Provide documentation.
^ • • •
Yes
a'
No
X
22 Overall, hp\v did the Contractor rate on communication issues? The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding communication Issues and the assessment guidelines.
CheckO, 1,2, or 3.
0 •
1. X
. .' i 1
3 • •
m
C83 Contractor Evaluation Fomn Contractor: Rosas Brothers Project No. C269130 SAFETY
%
1 c D
C
B
CO
o o
c
o
.93
I a
o z
23 Did the Contractor's staff consistently wear personal protective equipment as appropriate? If "No", explain on the attachment.
Yes
X
No
•
23 Did the Contractor's staff consistently wear personal protective equipment as appropriate? If "No", explain on the attachment.
Yes
X
No
•
24 Did the Contractor follow City and OSHA safety standards? If "Marginal or Unsatisfactory", explain on the attachment. • • X • •
25 Was the Contractor warned or cited by OSHA for violations? If Yes, explain on the attachment.
•
Yes
•
No
X
26 Was there an Inordinate number or severity of injuries? Explain on the attachment., If Yes, explain on the attachment.
Yes
•
No
X
27 Was the Contractor officially warned or cited for breach of U.S. Transportation Security Administration's standards or regulations? If "Yes'*i explain, on the attachment.
Yes
. •'
No
X
28 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on safety Issues? The scorQ for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding safety Issues and the assessment guidelines;
CheckO, 1, 2, or 3.
0 .1
X
3 •
i -
C84 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Rosas Brothers Project No. C269130 responsible for any bids they submit for future City of Oakland projects within three years of the date of the last Unsatisfactory overall rating.
Any Contractor that receives an Unsatisfactory Overall Rating is required to attend a meeting with the City Administrator, or his/her designee, prior to returning to bidding on City projects. The Contractor is required to demonstrate improvements made in areas deemed Unsatisfactory in prior City of Oaliland contracts.
The Public Works Agency Contract Administration Section will retain the final evaluation and any response from the Contractor for a period of five years. The City shall treat the evaluation as confidential, to the extent permitted by law.
COMMUNICATING THE EVALUATION: The. Contractor's Performance Evaluation has been communicated to the Contractor. Signature does not signify consent or agreement.
Contractor / Date Resident Engineer / Date
Civil Engineer / Date
C86 Contractor Evaluation Forni Contractor: Rosas Brothers Project No. C269130 Schedule L-2
City of Oakland
Public Works Agency
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Project Number/Title: HS1P5 W MacArthur Blvd from Market St. to Telegraph Ave Work Order Number (i f applicable): C468210
Contractor: Ray's Electric
Date of Notice to Proceed: September 19, 2017
Date of Notice of Completion: July 17, 2017
Date of Notice of Final Completion: _J
_
u
_
ly
_
1 _
7 _
,
_
20 _
1 _
7 _______________ _
Contract Amount: $1 ,110 ,86 5. 75
Evaluator Name and Title: lshrat Jahan, Resident Engineer The City's Resident E ngineer most familiar · with the Contractor's performance must complete this evaluation and submit it to Manager, PWA Project Delivery Division, within 30 calendar days of the issuance of the Final Payment.
Whenever the Resident Engineer finds the Contractor is performing below Satisfactory for any category of the Evaluation, the Resident Engineer shall discuss the perceived performance shortfall at the periodic site meetings with the Contractor. An Interim Evaluation will be performed if at any time the Resident Engineer finds that the overall performance of a Contractor is Marginal or Unsatisfactory. An Interim Evaluation is required prior to issuance of a Final Evaluatio n Rating of Unsatisfactory. The Final Evaluation upon Final Completion of the project will supersede interim ratings.
The following list provides a basic set of evaluation criteria that will be applicable to all construction projects awarded by the City of Oakland that are greater than $5 0, 000 . Narrative responses are required to support any evaluation criteria that are rated as Marginal or Unsatisfactory, and must be attached to this evaluation. If a narrative response is required, indicate before each narrative the number of the question for which the response is being provided. Any available supporting documentation to justify any Marginal or Unsatisfactory ratings must also be attached.
If a criterion is rated Marginal or Unsatisfactory and the rating is caused by the performance of a subcontractor, the narrative will note this. The narrative will also note the General Contractor's effort to improve the subcontractor's performance.
ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES: -r--···--······· - -- - ---- ---- ------ --- -- - ... ! Outstanding I Performance among the best level of achievement the City has experienced. 1_(3points)____ ________ __ ___ ___ ___ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _____ __ _ --- -- --- ------------------------- ----------------------------------------------,! Satisfactory Performance met contractual requirements. l(2points)
________ __ J___ ______ _ ___ _____ ___ __ ______ ___ ____ ___ _ _ ___ __ _ I Marginal 1 1 Performance barely met the lower range of the contractual requirements or (1 point) performance only met contractual requirements after extensive corrective ! unS-atisfactory f t�1:fo
n
ri!�J!
k
-��ci not meef contractual requirementi- The contractual i (0 points) I performance being assessed reflected serious problems for which corrective _ J actions were ineffective.
C66 Contra ctor Evaluation Form Contractor: Ray's Electric Project No. C468210 Attachment B