Docstoc

performance questionnaire

Document Sample
performance questionnaire Powered By Docstoc
					Client Team Performance – Pre Construction Phase

(Measured by Contractor)

Contractor:                                                     Authority:
Project name:                                                   Contract sum:      £
Date of review:                                                 Start on site:
Review led by:
Procurement
                  Competitive tender / IESE Tier 1 / IESE Tier 2 / IESE Tier 3
route:
                                           Score
                                                                                 Comment
                                           1–10



1.    Appointment of Contractor




2.    Design Process




3.    Project Management




4.    Provision of Information




5.    Cost Management




6.    Collaborative Approach




7.    Overall Performance


Signed/name                                                   Date




18d1821a-e4a3-47f6-a889-cecaefe221fd.doc
Performance
                     Definition                                               Scoring Criteria
Measure
Appointment          Was the first stage selection process suitable    9/10   Excellent; 1st stage process clear and appropriate, with well defined
of Contractor        and well managed? Was the quality of                     requirements and excellent detailed information provided. Timely
                     information provided good? Were you                      appointment of the contractor.
                     appointed at the appropriate stage of the         7/8    Good; 1st stage process good. Requirements generally well defined and
                     project?                                                 sufficient good quality information provided. Timely appointment of the
                                                                              contractor.
                                                                       5/6    Acceptable; Reasonable 1st stage process. Requirements vague in some
                                                                              areas and some information missing. Earlier contractor appointed would
                                                                              have been beneficial.
                                                                       3/4    Poor; 1st stage process unclear and poorly managed. Key information not
                                                                              provided. Contractor appointed too late to have meaningful contribution
                                                                              to second stage.
                                                                       1/2    Unacceptable; No clear 1st stage process. Fragmented information
                                                                              provision. Late contractor appointment caused significant delay / impact
                                                                              to project.
Design Process                                                         9/10   Excellent; Extremely well managed with good involvement of framework
                                                                              contractor and specialist sub-contractors. Timely decisions and clear, well
Where the design     How well did the Client Project team manage              managed processes for changes and value engineering.
responsibility is    the design process? Were the framework            7/8    Good; Well managed with good involvement of contractors. Key
retained by the      contractor and specialist subcontractors                 decisions made at appropriate time. Change management and value
Client               involved? Were key design decisions made at              engineering well managed.
                     the appropriate time? Were design changes and     5/6    Acceptable; Reasonable design management but limited contractor
                     value engineering well managed?                          involvement; one or two late decisions and lack of clarity on change
                                                                              management and value engineering.
Where the design     Were key design decisions made at the             3/4    Poor; Poor design management; some late decisions with poor change
responsibility is    appropriate time? Were design changes and                management and value engineering processes.
the responsibility   value engineering well managed?                   1/2    Unacceptable; Design process not managed; no involvement of
of the contractor                                                             contractor or subcontractors; late design decisions with significant impact
                                                                              on project.
Project              How well did the Client Project team manage       9/10   Excellent; Proactive planning and management with clear programme and
Management           the pre construction stage including:                    processes agreed and followed. Timely decision making and approvals.
                     programme management; project planning; risk      7/8    Good; Mostly well planned and managed; agreed programme and
                     management; change control; value engineering;           processes generally followed and most key decisions made at the
                     decision making and approvals?                           appropriate time.
                                                                       5/6    Acceptable; Reasonably planned and managed but programme and
                                                                              processes sometimes unclear or not followed. Some decisions made late
                                                                              but with minor impact.
                                                                       3/4    Poor; Poorly planned and managed. Programme and processes not
                                                                              defined and agreed at appropriate time and one or more key decision made
                                                                              late with impact on project implementation and /or costs.
                                                                       1/2    Unacceptable; Reactive management without clear processes. Late
                                                                              decisions and approvals with significant impact on programme and project
                                                                              implementation and costs.
Provision of         Timeliness and quality of information provided    9/10   Excellent; All information provided on time. Excellent quality and
Information          by the project team including response to                prompt response to all queries & requests for information.
                     queries and requests for information, including   7/8    Good; Majority of information provided on time. Good quality. Prompt
                     employers requirements for D&C projects.                 response to most queries and requests for information.
                                                                       5/6    Acceptable; Some information provided late but no significant impact on
                                                                              programme. Responded to queries / requests for information with some
                                                                              prompting.
                                                                       3/4    Poor; Some information provided late with some impact on programme.
                                                                              Slow response to queries / requests for information.
                                                                       1/2    Unacceptable; Most information provided late with significant impact on
                                                                              programme. No or very slow response to queries / requests for
                                                                              information.
Cost                 Did the Client Project team have a proactive      9/10   Excellent; Proactive and collaborative approach to agreeing costs.
Management           and collaborative approach to agreeing the               Realistic budget and cost plan with suitable contingencies. Positive and
                     design development fee, prelims, tender prices           proactive approach to value engineering and value for money.
                     and contract sum? Were the budget and cost        7/8    Good; Collaborative approach to agreeing costs. Well defined cost plan
                     plan adequate? Did the team have a proactive             and budget. Well considered approach to value engineering.
                     approach and positive contribution to value       5/6    Acceptable; Generally collaborative approach to agreeing costs.
                     engineering, achieving value for money and               Generally adequate cost plan and budget but some minor omissions.
                     target costs?                                            Reasonable approach and contribution to value engineering.
                                                                       3/4    Poor; Traditional approach to agreeing costs. Some omissions / errors on
                                                                              cost plan. Limited contribution and reactive approach to value
                                                                              engineering.
                                                                       1/2    Unacceptable; Adversarial approach to agreeing costs. Unrealistic cost
                                                                              plan and budget. No positive contribution to value engineering.
Collaborative        Was the Client Project team open and willing to   9/10   Excellent; Client team led and championed collaborative approach.
Approach             address project issues jointly? Did the team      7/8    Good; Client team had a positive and proactive approach to collaborative
                     have a proactive approach to finding solutions.          working.
                                                                       5/6    Acceptable; Client team worked well with the rest of team but tended
                                                                              towards traditional approach.
                                                                       3/4    Poor; Client team had traditional, sometimes contractual approach to team
                                                                              working.
                                                                       1/2    Unacceptable; Client team had adversarial approach.
Overall              Overall, how well did the Client Project team     9/10   Excellent; Client team performance was exemplary in all areas.
Performance          perform during the pre-contract period? This      7/8    Good; Client team performance was good in all areas.
                     does not need to be an average of the previous    5/6    Acceptable; Client team performance was acceptable but some issues /
                     scores as you may consider that the issues               room for improvement.
                     raised are not evenly weighted.                   3/4    Poor; Client team performance was poor in several areas.
                                                                       1/2    Unacceptable; Client team performance was unacceptable in one or more
                                                                              area causing major issues.