CDOT Form 313 "Consultant Performance Evaluation" - Colorado

What Is CDOT Form 313?

This is a legal form that was released by the Colorado Department of Transportation - a government authority operating within Colorado. As of today, no separate filing guidelines for the form are provided by the issuing department.

Form Details:

  • Released on May 1, 1993;
  • The latest edition provided by the Colorado Department of Transportation;
  • Easy to use and ready to print;
  • Quick to customize;
  • Compatible with most PDF-viewing applications;
  • Fill out the form in our online filing application.

Download a printable version of CDOT Form 313 by clicking the link below or browse more documents and templates provided by the Colorado Department of Transportation.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Download CDOT Form 313 "Consultant Performance Evaluation" - Colorado

1162 times
Rate (4.5 / 5) 58 votes
Subacct#:
Project no.:
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Project name:
Rating dates:
To: (Appropriate Division Head)
Item I
Item II
Consultant Performance Evaluation Report
Subject:
Item III
Item IV
Rating key (see instructions):
Name of Consultant:
Excellent (E)
Good (G)
Poor (P)
Type of work:
Very Good (VG)
Acceptable (A)
Not Applicable (NA)
CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT PHASE
PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE
PHASE
FACTOR
ITEM I
ITEM II
ITEM III
ITEM IV
A. Knowledge of department needs
B. Cooperation with department, public,
other agencies
C. Adequacy of personnel, supervision and
management
D. Prosecution and submission of work
E. Clarity of work
F. Support calculations, data, reports
G. Completion of work within contract budget
H. Accurate billing records
I.
Overall quality, accuracy and competence
J. Prudent plans/creative design
Rater: Project Manager/Engineer
(signature required)
Reviewer: Preconstruction/ Construction
Engineer (signature required)
Region Engineer/Branch Manager
Remarks:
xc: Agreements and Consultant Management Office
CDOT Form #313
5/93
Subacct#:
Project no.:
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Project name:
Rating dates:
To: (Appropriate Division Head)
Item I
Item II
Consultant Performance Evaluation Report
Subject:
Item III
Item IV
Rating key (see instructions):
Name of Consultant:
Excellent (E)
Good (G)
Poor (P)
Type of work:
Very Good (VG)
Acceptable (A)
Not Applicable (NA)
CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT PHASE
PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE
PHASE
FACTOR
ITEM I
ITEM II
ITEM III
ITEM IV
A. Knowledge of department needs
B. Cooperation with department, public,
other agencies
C. Adequacy of personnel, supervision and
management
D. Prosecution and submission of work
E. Clarity of work
F. Support calculations, data, reports
G. Completion of work within contract budget
H. Accurate billing records
I.
Overall quality, accuracy and competence
J. Prudent plans/creative design
Rater: Project Manager/Engineer
(signature required)
Reviewer: Preconstruction/ Construction
Engineer (signature required)
Region Engineer/Branch Manager
Remarks:
xc: Agreements and Consultant Management Office
CDOT Form #313
5/93
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONSULTANT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
A. Purpose of evaluation:
The completed evaluation report of a consultant's performance will be used as input for selection of the
consultant for future assignments.
B. Rating procedure:
The raters and the time periods in which evaluations are performed shall be as follows:
Item I - Contract Phase
The rater will be the contract administrator (Consultant Management Unit) and/or the Project Manager.
The rating will be performed after the consultant's work has been accepted or at
appropriate contract
stages. The rating will be reviewed by the Preconstruction Engineer, Region Transportation Director,
Branch Head or other official directly responsible.
Item II - Preconstruction Phase (Preliminary Engineering)
The rater will be the Project Manager or other official directly responsible for incorporating the consultants
work into Department plans, reports, etc. The rating will be performed promptly after the consultant's work
has been used (ie., after the FIR). The rating will be reviewed by the Preconstruction Engineer, Region
Transportation Director, Branch Head or other official directly responsible.
Item III - Preconstruction Phase (Final Design)
The rating will be completed and reviewed by the same individuals as indicated for Item II and as promptly
as practical after the FOR.
Item IV - Construction Phase
The rater will be the Project Engineer or other official directly responsible for completing the construction
project on which the consultant's work was used. The rating will be performed promptly after construction
of the project has been completed. The rating will be reviewed by the Construction Engineer, Region
Transportation Director or other official directly responsible.
C. Basis of ratings:
Ratings of the consultant's performance will be accomplished by marking poor, acceptable, good, very good,
excellent or not applicable for each of the indicated factors on the evaluation report. All poor and excellent
evalua-
tions for any factor shall have an explanation in the "Remarks" section provided on the form.
The keys to the various rating levels are as follows:
Excellent (E)
Consultant consistently exceeded expectations
Very Good (VG)
Consultant frequently exceeded expectations
Good (G)
Consultant consistently met expectations
Acceptable (A)
Consultant occasionally failed to meet expectations
Poor (P)
Consultant consistently failed to meet expectations
Not Applicable (NA)
As indicated on form or as determined by rater
RATING FACTORS
Ratings for each factor should be based on how often, how quickly and to what degree the following criteria were met by the
consultant during the performance of the work.
Factor A - Knowledge of Department needs
* Consultant was knowledgeable and fulfilled his contractual obligation with the Department.
* Consultant maintained the scope of services sought by the Department.
* Consultant was familiar with the Department's policies and procedures.
* Consultant maintained the flexibility necessary for meeting the changing Departmental needs.
* Consultant served the Department, but was not subservient to it. This means that occasionally the Consultant must give the
Department unpleasant news such as: costs of a design concept exceed the budget.
Factor B - Cooperation with Department, Public, Other Agencies
* Consultant displayed a willingness to work as a team member in the development of a project. Liaison with the Department's
Project Manager was undertaken at the earliest possible time (prior to the signing of contract documents if possible) ensuring a
common understanding of the scope of the project as well as conformity with the Department's standards, practices, accuracy
requirements, format, computer data compatibility, survey practices and such other items as the Project Manager considered
to be critical to the project.
* Consultant mediated disagreements between disciplines and/or agencies always in the best interest of the project.
* Consultant was accessible to Department staff and responsive to their questions, needs and concerns.
* Consultant maintained working relationship with the Department and other agencies.
* Consultant participated in community workshops/public meetings and responded to citizens/groups seeking information or
assistance.
RATING FACTORS (continued)
Factor C - Adequacy of Personnel, Supervision and Management
* Consultant did not over extend their human resources to where their personnel were inadequate to maintain schedules.
* The work was accomplished at the lowest possible level without sacrificing quality of the design.
* The work was checked prior to submission to the Department.
* Consultant knew when to take charge and utilized the authority granted them.
Factor D - Prosecution and Submission of Work
* Consultant obtained approvals and decisions from the Department in a timely manner, thereby permitting the project to flow
smoothly and quickly.
* The Project Manager was informed of any change in scope, lack of information, or decisions by the department or other
agencies that adversely affected the schedule or did not permit the work to progress in a logical manner.
* Consultant developed project schedules and communicated with the Project Manager with regard to the progress of work.
* Consultant participated and contributed to the decision making process.
* Consultant submitted plans, specifications and supporting documentation to the Department in a timely manner; maintaining
schedules and meeting deadlines for project milestones (ie., Financial Package, Scope of Work, Man Hour Estimates, FIR,
FOR, etc.).
* Work was checked for accuracy and content prior to submission to the Department.
Factor E - Clarity of Work
* Consultant provided the Department with plans and specifications that met Department standards for content and format. These
plans and specifications were therefore readily understood by all those persons who were required to work with them.
* Reports, calculations, correspondence and other written materials exhibited completeness, clarity and conciseness and
addressed Department concerns and questions.
Factor F - Support Calculations, Data, Reports, etc.
* Consultant explained, defended and justified technical decisions and actions.
* Consultant provided hard copy documentation concerning design decisions, calculations, and other supporting data so that a
project history was maintained.
Factor G - Completion of Work Within Contract Budget
* Consultant prepared plans and specifications for the project that considered the project budget (preliminary engineering and
construction). If the project approached a budget overrun, the consultant brought this fact to the attention of the Project
Manager in a prompt and timely manner and offered alternative solutions to the budget problems.
* Consultant preformed the scope of services within the anticipated man-hours, scheduled completion date and actual estimated
fee.
* Supplemental contracts to the original contract were minimized through careful planning and forethought when establishing the
origional scope of services and contract agreement with the Department.
Factor H - Accurate Billing Records
* Consultant provided the Department with mathematically correct and itemized breakdowns of billing charges in accordance with
commonly accepted accounting practices both upon completion of the project and when requested.
* Salaries, indirect costs, fixed fees and other rates submitted agreed with the contract cost proposal.
* Supporting documentation for charges were provided and questions were answered in a timely manner.
Factor I - Overall Quality, Accuracy and Competence
* Consultant provided work that was technically accurate and complete, and displayed professional competence with regard to
content.
* Construction oversights were not the result of omissions or confusing details provided by the consultant in the plans or specifi-
cations.
* Consultant's work was checked prior to submission to the Department to ensure quality and accuracy of the work in meeting
the scope of services under the contract.
Factor J - Prudent Plans/Creative Design
* Although new and innovative solutions are permitted, the consultant ensured that only appropriate design alternatives meeting
the Department's objectives were selected.
* Innovative and/or state-of-the-art methods, procedures, designs or theories in solving problems were used.
* Although a design was unique, innovative and creative; the project remained constructible.
Factor K - DBE Participation
* Consultant participated in the Department's DBE goals within the terms of the contract.
Page of 3