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.
Pages to are hidden for
"performance questionnaire"Please download to view full document