Client Team Performance – Pre Construction Phase
(Measured by Contractor)
Project name: Contract sum: £
Date of review: Start on site:
Review led by:
Competitive tender / IESE Tier 1 / IESE Tier 2 / IESE Tier 3
1. Appointment of Contractor
2. Design Process
3. Project Management
4. Provision of Information
5. Cost Management
6. Collaborative Approach
7. Overall Performance
Definition Scoring Criteria
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.