SCHEDULE L-1
CITY OF OAKLAND
CONSULTANT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM
Consultant Name & Address:
Type of Services/Work Provided:
Project Complexity (Standard or Difficult):
Consultant Lead Project Manager:
Project Name:
City Project No:
Final Value of Consultant Contract:
Duration of Consultant Contract (Start & end dates):
Final Value of Construction Contract:
City Construction Resident Engineer (with phone #):
Date of Evaluation:
City Project Manager/Evaluator (with phone #):
Reviewed and Approved By (with phone #):
Ratings Guidelines:
Poor - Work required extensive revisions, included numerous & significant errors; consultant was unable or unwilling to perform consistently, required an inordinate amount of supervision, and/or failed to meet professional standards/project objectives. Needs to Improve – Performance was marginal; work required more review and included more errors than would normally be anticipated; level of service or expertise below average. Average – Performance and work were satisfactory; services provided were at least of industry standard; no significant errors or problems; professional service objectives met. Excellent – Performance was clearly above standard; expectations exceeded; objectives were met with an added level of service and/or with a higher level of professional expertise.
Peter Slote, 510-238-7432
Attachment A
Consultant Performance Evaluation
DRAFT EXHIBIT B
Please rate the Consultant on the following topics by checking the appropriate box:
QUESTIONS Poor
Needs to
Improve Average Excellent
Not
Applicable
1. Quality of Design/Work
2. Ability to meet the Project
Objectives
3. Knowledge, Expertise, and State-
of –the Art Technologies
4. Innovation of Design/Work
5. Thoroughness of Design/Work
6. Quality Control of Work
7. Ability to React and Respond to
Problems/Issues
8. Ability to Maintain to the Project
Schedule and to Time Commitments
9. Ability to Maintain to the Project
Budget
10. Accuracy of Cost Estimating
11. Constructibility of the
Design/Work
12. Quality of Construction Support
Services
13. Accuracy and Timeliness of
Billings and other Documents
14. Sufficient and Appropriate
Staffing of the Project by the
Consultant
15. Ability to Manage and
Coordinate Sub-Consultants
Consultant Performance Evaluation
DRAFT EXHIBIT B
QUESTIONS Poor
Needs to
Improve Average Excellent
Not
Applicable
16. Ability and Ease of
Communicating with City Staff
17. Ability to Communicate with the
Community and to Make
Presentations
18. Willingness, Flexibility, and
Attitude in Working with the City
19. Ability to Follow City Directives
(i.e. Architectural Design Concept,
other Requirements, etc.)
OVERALL RATING
Additional Comments (attach additional information, as necessary):
Note: The Project Coordinator/Manager shall complete this evaluation form for each primary consultant within 60 days upon the completion of an individual project or assignment. Interim eva luations shall also be prepared for projects of a long duration (i.e. over one year) or if the consultant’s performance merits notification of any deficiencies.
Information is to be submitted to and kept on file by the PWA Contract Administration Division for five (5) years. A copy of the evaluation shall also be provided to the consultant. These forms may be used, in part, as a reference to evaluate the consul tant for future City professional services contracts.
Consultants with an overall evaluation o f “Poor” or “Needs to Improve” are given an opportunity to 1) appeal the evaluation to the Assistant Director of Public Works, or his designee, and/or 2) append the evaluation with a one -page statement that explains or refutes the City’s finding.
To the extent permitted by law, the City shall treat the evaluations as confidential information.