View Attachment B — Rules and Legislation Committee

Attachment B

C66 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No.

Schedule L-2
City of Oakland
Public Works Agency

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Project Number/Title:

Work Order Number (if applicable):

Contractor:

Date of Notice to Proceed:

Date of Notice of Completion:

Date of Notice of Final Completion:

Contract Amount:

Evaluator Name and Title:

The City’s Resident Engineer 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 Evaluation 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 $50,000. 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:

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.

C67 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable

WORK PERFORMANCE
1 Did the Contractor perform all of the work with acceptable Quality and Workmanship? □ □ □ □ □
1a
If problems arose, did the Contractor provide solutions/coordinate with the designers and work proactively with the City to minimize impacts? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. Provide documentation. □ □ □ □ □ 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. □ □ □ □ □
2a Were corrections 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. □ □ □ □ □ 3 Was the Contractor responsive to City staff’s comments and concerns regarding the work performed or the work product delivered? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. Provide documentation. □ □ □ □ □ 4 Were there other significant issues related to “Work Performance”? If Yes, explain on the attachment. Provide documentation. Yes
□
No
□
5 Did the Contractor cooperate with on-site or adjacent tenants, business owners and residents and work in such a manner as to minimize disruptions to the public. If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. □ □ □ □ □ 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. □ □ □ □ □
7 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on work performance? 0 □
1 □
2 □
3 □
The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding work performance and the assessment guidelines.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C68 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable

TIMELINESS
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.
□ □ □ □ □
9 Was the Contractor required to provide a service in accordance with an established schedule (such as for security, maintenance, custodial, etc.)? If “No”, or “N/A”, go to Question #10. If “Yes”, complete (9a) below. Yes
□
No
□
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. □ □ □ □ □ 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. □ □ □ □ □
12 Were there other significant issues related to timeliness? If yes, explain on the attachment. Provide documentation. Yes
□
No
□
13 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on timeliness? 0 □
1 □
2 □
3 □ The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding timeliness and the assessment guidelines.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C69 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable

FINANCIAL
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). □ □ □ □ □ 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? Yes
□
No
□
Number of Claims: _______________
Claim amounts: $________________
Settlement amount:$________________
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). □ □ □ □ □ 17 Were there any other significant issues related to financial issues? If Yes, explain on the attachment and provide documentation. Yes
□
No
□
18 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on financial issues? 0 □
1 □
2 □
3 □
The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding financial issues and the assessment guidelines.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C70 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable

COMMUNICATION
19 Was the Contractor responsive to the City’s questions, requests for proposal, etc.? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. □ □ □ □ □ 20 Did the Contractor communicate with City staff clearly and in a timely manner regarding:
20a
Notification of any significant issues that arose? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. □ □ □ □ □
20b
Staffing issues (changes, replacements, additions, etc.)? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. □ □ □ □ □
20c
Periodic progress reports as required by the contract (both verbal and written)? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. □ □ □ □ □ 20d Were there any billing disputes? If “Yes”, explain on the attachment. Yes □
No
□
21 Were there any other significant issues related to communication issues? Explain on the attachment. Provide documentation. Yes
□
No
□
22 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on communication issues? 0 □
1 □
2 □
3 □
The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding communication issues and the assessment guidelines.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C71 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable
SAFETY
23 Did the Contractor’s staff consistently wear personal protective equipment as appropriate? If “No”, explain on the attachment. Yes
□
No
□
24 Did the Contractor follow City and OSHA safety standards? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. □ □ □ □ □
25 Was the Contractor warned or cited by OSHA for violations? If Yes, explain on the attachment. Yes
□
No
□
26 Was there an inordinate number or severity of injuries? Explain on the attachment. If Yes, explain on the attachment. Yes
□
No
□
27 Was the Contractor officially warned or cited for breach of U.S. Transportation Security Administration’s standards or regulations? If “Yes”, explain on the attachment. Yes
□
No
□
28 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on safety issues? 0 □
1 □
2 □
3 □ The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding safety issues and the assessment guidelines.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C72 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No.

OVERALL RATING
Based on the weighting factors below, calculate the Contractor’s overall score using the scores from the four categories above.

1. Enter Overall score from Question 7 _________ X 0.25 = __________

2. Enter Overall score from Question 13 _________ X 0.25 = __________

3. Enter Overall score from Question 18 __________ X 0.20 = __________

4. Enter Overall score from Question 22 __________ X 0.15 = __________

5. Enter Overall score from Question 28 __________ X 0.15 = __________ TOTAL SCORE (Sum of 1 through 5): ______________
OVERALL RATING: ____________________
Outstanding: Greater than 2.5
Satisfactory Greater than 1.5 & less than or equal to 2.5 Marginal: Between 1.0 & 1.5
Unsatisfactory: Less than 1.0

PROCEDURE:

The Resident Engineer will prepare the Contractor Performance Evaluation and submit it to the Supervising Civil Engineer. The Supervising Civil Engineer will review the Contractor Performance Evaluation to ensure adequate documentation is included, the Resident Engineer has followed the process correctly, the Contractor Performance Evaluation has been prepared in a fair and unbiased manner, and the ratings assigned by the Resident Engineer are consistent with all other Resident Engineers using consistent performance expectations and similar rating scales.

The Resident Engineer will transmit a copy of the Contractor Performance Evaluation to the Contractor. Overall Ratings of Outstanding or Satisfactory are final and cannot be protested or appealed. If the Overall Rating is Marginal or Unsatisfactory, the Contractor will have 10 calendar days in which they may file a protest of the rating. The Public Works Agency Assistant Director, Design & Construction Services Department, will consider a Contractor’s protest and render his/her determination of the validity of the Contractor’s protest. If the Overall Rating is Marginal, the Assistant Director’s determination will be final and not subject to further appeal. If the Overall Rating is Unsatisfactory and the protest is denied (in whole or in part) by the Assistant Director, the Contractor may appeal the Evaluation to the City Administrator, or his/her designee. The appeal must be filed within 14 calendar days of the Assistant Director’s ruling on the protest. The City Administrator, or his/her designee, will hold a hearing with the Contractor within 21 calendar days of the filing of the appeal. The decision of the City Administrator regarding the appeal will be final.

C74 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. .

ATTACHMENT TO CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:

Use this sheet to provide any substantiating comments to support the ratings in the Performance Evaluation. Indicate before each narrative the number of the question for which the response is being provided. Attach additional sheets if necessary.

C66 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No.

Schedule L-2
City of Oakland
Public Works Agency

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Project Number/Title:

Work Order Number (if applicable): Contractor:

Date of Notice to Proceed:

Date of Notice of Completion:

Date of Notice of Final Completion:

Contract Amount:

Evaluator Name and Title:

ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES:

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.

C67 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Outstanding Not Applicable

WORK PERFORMANCE
1 Did the Contractor perform all of the work with acceptable Quality and Workmanship?
1a
If problems arose, did the Contractor provide solutions/coordinate with the designers and work proactively with the City to minimize impacts? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. Provide documentation. 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.
2a Were corrections 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. 3 Was the Contractor responsive to City staff’s comments and concerns regarding the work performed or the work product delivered? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. Provide documentation.
4 Were there other significant issues related to “Work Performance”? If Yes, explain on the attachment. Provide documentation.

Yes No
5 Did the Contractor cooperate with on-site or adjacent tenants, business owners and residents and work in such a manner as to minimize disruptions to the public. If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. 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.
7 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on work performance? 0 1 2 3
The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding work performance and the assessment guidelines.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C68 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Outstanding Not Applicable

Yes No 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.
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.
12 Were there other significant issues related to timeliness? If yes, explain on the attachment. Provide documentation.

Yes No
13 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on timeliness? 0 1 2 3 The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding timeliness and the assessment guidelines.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C69 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Outstanding Not Applicable

FINANCIAL
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).
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? Yes No Number of Claims: _______________
Claim amounts: $________________
Settlement amount:$________________
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). 17 Were there any other significant issues related to financial issues? If Yes, explain on the attachment and provide documentation.

Yes No
18 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on financial issues? 0 1 2 3
The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding financial issues and the assessment guidelines.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C70 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Outstanding Not Applicable

COMMUNICATION
19 Was the Contractor responsive to the City’s questions, requests for proposal, etc.? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. 20 Did the Contractor communicate with City staff clearly and in a timely manner regarding:
20a
Notification of any significant issues that arose? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment.
20b
Staffing issues (changes, replacements, additions, etc.)? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment.
20c
Periodic progress reports as required by the contract (both verbal and written)? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. 20d Were there any billing disputes? If “Yes”, explain on the attachment. Yes No 21 Were there any other significant issues related to communication issues? Explain on the attachment. Provide documentation.

Yes No
22 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on communication issues? The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the 0 1 2 3 questions given above regarding communication issues and the assessment guidelines.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

Yes No
24 Did the Contractor follow City and OSHA safety standards? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment.
25 Was the Contractor warned or cited by OSHA for violations? If Yes, explain on the attachment.

Yes No
26 Was there an inordinate number or severity of injuries? Explain on the attachment. If Yes, explain on the attachment.

Yes No
27 Was the Contractor officially warned or cited for breach of U.S. Transportation Security Administration’s standards or regulations? If “Yes”, explain on the attachment.

Yes No
28 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on safety issues? 0 1 2 3 The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding safety issues and the assessment guidelines.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C72 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No.

OVERALL RATING
Based on the weighting factors below, calculate the Contractor’s overall score using the scores from the four categories above.

1. Enter Overall score from Question 7 _________ X 0.25 = __________

2. Enter Overall score from Question 13 _________ X 0.25 = __________

3. Enter Overall score from Question 18 __________ X 0.20 = __________

4. Enter Overall score from Question 22 __________ X 0.15 = __________

Contractors who receive an Unsatisfactory Overall Rating (i.e., Total Score less than 1.0) will be allowed the option of voluntarily refraining from bidding on any City of Oakland projects within one year from the date of the Unsatisfactory Overall Rating, or of being categorized as non-responsible for any projects the Contractor bids on for a period of one year from the date of the Unsatisfactory Overall Rating. Two Unsatisfactory Overall Ratings within any five year period will result in the Contractor being categorized by the City Administrator as non- C73 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. . 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 Oakland 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 ______________________________ Supervising Civil Engineer / Date Keith Anderson (Mar 31, 2022 15:25 PDT)
3/31/2022
Keith Anderson
Mar 31, 2022 Apr 19, 2022
C74 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. .

ATTACHMENT TO CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:

C393910_M&H_20201223
Final Audit Report 2022-04-20
Created: 2022-03-31
By: Paul Tran ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAKeLn6MDUyOMGlPXPfIb5P2hR7TwSeRog "C393910_M&H_20201223" History
Document created by Paul Tran ([email protected])
2022-03-31 - 9:14:48 PM GMT- IP address: 209.232.103.108 Document emailed to Keith Anderson ([email protected]) for signature 2022-03-31 - 9:15:45 PM GMT
Email viewed by Keith Anderson ([email protected]) 2022-03-31 - 9:40:04 PM GMT- IP address: 172.226.36.103 Document e-signed by Keith Anderson ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022-03-31 - 10:25:57 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 12.215.236.34 Document emailed to Phillip Fung ([email protected]) for signature 2022-03-31 - 10:25:59 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Phillip Fung ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022-04-20 - 4:10:33 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 98.45.69.55 Agreement completed.
2022-04-20 - 4:10:33 AM GMT
C66 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No.

Schedule L-2
City of Oakland
Public Works Agency

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Project Number/Title:

Work Order Number (if applicable):

Contractor:

Date of Notice to Proceed:

Date of Notice of Completion:

Date of Notice of Final Completion:

Contract Amount:

Evaluator Name and Title:

ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES:

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.

C67 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Outstanding Not Applicable

Yes No
5 Did the Contractor cooperate with on-site or adjacent tenants, business owners and residents and work in such a manner as to minimize disruptions to the public. If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. 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.
7 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on work performance? The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the 0 1 2 3 questions given above regarding work performance and the assessment guidelines.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C68 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Outstanding Not Applicable

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C69 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Outstanding Not Applicable

FINANCIAL
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).
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? Yes No Number of Claims: _______________
Claim amounts: $________________
Settlement amount:$________________
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). 17 Were there any other significant issues related to financial issues? If Yes, explain on the attachment and provide documentation.

Yes No
18 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on financial issues? The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the 0 1 2 3 questions given above regarding financial issues and the assessment guidelines.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C70 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Outstanding Not Applicable

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

Yes No
26 Was there an inordinate number or severity of injuries? Explain on the attachment. If Yes, explain on the attachment.

Yes No
27 Was the Contractor officially warned or cited for breach of U.S. Transportation Security Administration’s standards or regulations? If “Yes”, explain on the attachment.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C72 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No.

OVERALL RATING
Based on the weighting factors below, calculate the Contractor’s overall score using the scores from the four categories above.

1. Enter Overall score from Question 7 _________ X 0.25 = __________

2. Enter Overall score from Question 13 _________ X 0.25 = __________

3. Enter Overall score from Question 18 __________ X 0.20 = __________

4. Enter Overall score from Question 22 __________ X 0.15 = __________

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 ______________________________ Supervising Civil Engineer / Date Brian Huitt (Jan 9, 2023 15:31 PST)
Brian Huitt Jan 9, 2023 Jan 10, 2023
C74 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. .

ATTACHMENT TO CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:

Contractor Evaluation - 2019OCC-TO1_MacGui
re&Hester_2022.12.16_2
Final Audit Report 2023-01-10
Created: 2023-01-09
By: Christina Ferracane ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAalHWTfMTgOsQBO-OLy1K1gv26OmILWJM "Contractor Evaluation - 2019OCC-TO1_MacGuire&Hester_202

2.12.16_2" History
Document created by Christina Ferracane ([email protected]) 2023-01-09 - 10:40:08 PM GMT- IP address: 209.232.103.112 Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2023-01-09 - 10:41:43 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2023-01-09 - 10:41:48 PM GMT- IP address: 66.249.84.67
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Brian Huitt 2023-01-09 - 11:31:19 PM GMT- IP address: 12.215.236.34 Document e-signed by Brian Huitt ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-01-09 - 11:31:21 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 12.215.236.34 Document emailed to Phillip Fung ([email protected]) for signature 2023-01-09 - 11:31:22 PM GMT
Email viewed by Phillip Fung ([email protected])
2023-01-10 - 7:01:04 PM GMT- IP address: 209.232.103.95 Document e-signed by Phillip Fung ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-01-10 - 7:01:15 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 209.232.103.95 Agreement completed.
2023-01-10 - 7:01:15 PM GMT
C66 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No.

Schedule L-2
City of Oakland
Public Works Agency

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Project Number/Title:

Work Order Number (if applicable):

Contractor:

Date of Notice to Proceed:

Date of Notice of Completion:

Date of Notice of Final Completion:

Contract Amount:

Evaluator Name and Title:

ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES:

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.

C67 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C68 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C69 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C70 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

C72 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No.

OVERALL RATING
Based on the weighting factors below, calculate the Contractor’s overall score using the scores from the four categories above.

1. Enter Overall score from Question 7 _________ X 0.25 = __________

2. Enter Overall score from Question 13 _________ X 0.25 = __________

3. Enter Overall score from Question 18 __________ X 0.20 = __________

4. Enter Overall score from Question 22 __________ X 0.15 = __________

PROCEDURE:

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 ______________________________ Supervising Civil Engineer / Date McGuire & Hester 1005018
Paul Zengel 3/14/23
C74 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. .

ATTACHMENT TO CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:

C66 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No.

Schedule L-2
City of Oakland
Public Works Agency

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Project Number/Title:

Work Order Number (if applicable):

Contractor:

Date of Notice to Proceed:

Date of Notice of Completion:

Date of Notice of Final Completion:

Contract Amount:

Evaluator Name and Title:

ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES:

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.

McGuire and Hester 1001676-ZOO 1001676-ZOO McGuire and Hester 01/16/2023 02/14/2023 02/14/2023 $579,552.14 Wei Xie, Resident Engineer C67 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

McGuire and Hester 1001676-ZOO ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
C68 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

McGuire and Hester 1001676-ZOO ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
C69 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

McGuire and Hester 1001676-ZOO ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
C70 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

McGuire and Hester 1001676-ZOO ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
C71 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory OutstandingNot Applicable
SAFETY
23 Did the Contractor’s staff consistently wear personal protective equipment as appropriate? If “No”, explain on the attachment. Yes
□
No
□
24 Did the Contractor follow City and OSHA safety standards? If “Marginal or Unsatisfactory”, explain on the attachment. □ □ □ □ □
25 Was the Contractor warned or cited by OSHA for violations? If Yes, explain on the attachment. Yes
□
No
□
26 Was there an inordinate number or severity of injuries? Explain on the attachment. If Yes, explain on the attachment. Yes
□
No
□
27 Was the Contractor officially warned or cited for breach of U.S. Transportation Security Administration’s standards or regulations? If “Yes”, explain on the attachment. Yes
□
No
□
28 Overall, how did the Contractor rate on safety issues? 0 □
1 □
2 □
3 □ The score for this category must be consistent with the responses to the questions given above regarding safety issues and the assessment guidelines.

Check 0, 1, 2, or 3.

McGuire and Hester 1001676-ZOO ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
C72 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No.

OVERALL RATING
Based on the weighting factors below, calculate the Contractor’s overall score using the scores from the four categories above.

1. Enter Overall score from Question 7 _________ X 0.25 = __________

2. Enter Overall score from Question 13 _________ X 0.25 = __________

3. Enter Overall score from Question 18 __________ X 0.20 = __________

4. Enter Overall score from Question 22 __________ X 0.15 = __________

PROCEDURE:

Contractors who receive an Unsatisfactory Overall Rating (i.e., Total Score less than 1.0) will be allowed the option of voluntarily refraining from bidding on any City of Oakland projects within one year from the date of the Unsatisfactory Overall Rating, or of being categorized as non-responsible for any projects the Contractor bids on for a period of one year from the date of the Unsatisfactory Overall Rating. Two Unsatisfactory Overall Ratings within any five year period will result in the Contractor being categorized by the City Administrator as nonMcGuire and Hester 1001676-ZOO 2 0.5 3 0.75 2 0.4 2 0.3 2 0.32.25 2.25 C73 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. . responsible for any bids they submit for future City of Oakland projects within three years of the date of the last Unsatisfactory overall rating.

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
______________________________
Supervising Civil Engineer / Date
McGuire and Hester 1001676-ZOO Matthew Finley (May 9, 2023 13:49 PDT) Matthew Finley
05/09/2023 05/10/2023 03/30/2023
C74 Contractor Evaluation Form Contractor: Project No. .

ATTACHMENT TO CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:

McGuire and Hester 1001676-ZOO
1001676 - ZOO_M&H_02-14-23
Final Audit Report 2023-05-10
Created: 2023-05-09
By: Wei Xie ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA1rF_aSJUQ2kFkZVsgX9VrefaN0Bkaphk "1001676 - ZOO_M&H_02-14-23" History
Document created by Wei Xie ([email protected])
2023-05-09 - 5:43:25 PM GMT- IP address: 209.232.103.110 Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2023-05-09 - 5:44:39 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2023-05-09 - 7:00:59 PM GMT- IP address: 146.75.154.0
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Matthew Finley 2023-05-09 - 8:49:35 PM GMT- IP address: 24.4.82.150
Document e-signed by Matthew Finley ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-05-09 - 8:49:37 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 24.4.82.150 Document emailed to Phillip Fung ([email protected]) for signature 2023-05-09 - 8:50:24 PM GMT
Email viewed by Phillip Fung ([email protected])
2023-05-10 - 9:07:04 PM GMT- IP address: 209.232.103.105 Document e-signed by Phillip Fung ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-05-10 - 9:07:19 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 209.232.103.105 Agreement completed.
2023-05-10 - 9:07:19 PM GMT

Isabell Mysyk (Nov 14, 2024 14:17 PST) Matthew Finley (Nov 14, 2024 14:26 PST) Matthew Finley Isabell Mysyk
Paul Tran (Nov 14, 2024 14:57 PST)

CPE
Final Audit Report 2024-11-14
Created: 2024-11-14 (Pacific Standard Time)
By: Isabell Mysyk ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAwdqGrQHrT9f4A1uRLd0c3K4tZGC0ppnH "CPE" History
Document created by Isabell Mysyk ([email protected]) 2024-11-14 - 2:16:28 PM PST- IP address: 209.232.103.111 Document emailed to Isabell Mysyk ([email protected]) for signature 2024-11-14 - 2:17:30 PM PST
Document e-signed by Isabell Mysyk ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2024-11-14 - 2:17:43 PM PST - Time Source: server- IP address: 209.232.103.111 Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2024-11-14 - 2:17:45 PM PST
Email viewed by [email protected]
2024-11-14 - 2:23:36 PM PST- IP address: 66.249.84.65
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Matthew Finley 2024-11-14 - 2:26:20 PM PST- IP address: 12.215.236.34
Document e-signed by Matthew Finley ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2024-11-14 - 2:26:22 PM PST - Time Source: server- IP address: 12.215.236.34 Document emailed to Paul Tran ([email protected]) for signature 2024-11-14 - 2:26:24 PM PST
Email viewed by Paul Tran ([email protected])
2024-11-14 - 2:42:15 PM PST- IP address: 104.47.65.254
Document e-signed by Paul Tran ([email protected])
Signature Date: 2024-11-14 - 2:57:19 PM PST - Time Source: server- IP address: 209.232.103.108 Agreement completed.
2024-11-14 - 2:57:19 PM PST

Rules and Legislation Committee - CancelledOctober 1, 2026

Rules and Legislation Committee - Cancelled
October 1, 2026