Docstoc

Contract Termination Letters Examples

Document Sample
Contract Termination Letters Examples Powered By Docstoc
					Performance Assessment Form
Report Date:               Contract No.                                                Contractor Name:


NOTE - Where scores differ by 2 points or more, supporting evidence should be attached.

                                           Assessment Criteria                                                         Agreed                                       Evidence
                           (Note - move cursor over criteria below to obtain "pop- Superintendent's   Contractor's    Score (at                                    Available If
  Assessment Category                                                                                                               Brief Comments/Justification
                             up" guidance on scoring). Examples given are for           Score            Score       monthly site                                  Requested
                                   guidance and by no means exhaustive.                                               meeting)                                       Yes/No
    Quality of Product       Under development, for future use.
                           Quality management system meeting contractual and
                           prequalification requirements and used
                           Environmental management system meeting contractual
                           and prequalification requirements and used
                           Safety management system meeting contractual and
 Application of Systems    prequalification requirements and used
                           Cultural heritage managed in accordance with contract
                           Traffic managed in accordance with contract
                           10% Training Policy: Application of government policy for
                           the engagement of apprentices and trainees
      System Score                                                                                                     #DIV/0!

                          Knowledge, understanding and effective application of
                          contract documents/specifications
                          Contractual timeframes met
   Contractor's Team
                          Construction techniques used are appropriate for project
Capability and Experience
                          Management & payment of subcontractors and suppliers
                          Effective project management skills (overall management
                          of project)
 Contractor's Capability                                                                                               #DIV/0!
          Score
                          Knowledge and understanding of contract
   Superintendent/        documents/specifications
       Principal's        Responsive decision making/claims assessment and
 Representative's Team    meeting contractual timeframes
Capability and Experience Application of engineering judgement
                          Demonstrated fairness and reasonableness
    Superintendent's                                                                                                   #DIV/0!
     Capability Score
                          Open and honest communications
      Relationships       Working together to achieve the best project outcomes
                          Relationships with stakeholders
   Relationship Score                                                                                                  #DIV/0!
                          Dispute occurrence and magnitude (includes disputed
                          claims)
     Claims/Disputes
                          Adequate supporting documentation provided for
                          assessment of claims
      Claims Score                                                                                                     #DIV/0!
                                                                                                                                                                    Form C6876
 External Considerations Design errors and omissions                                                                                                                Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                         Page 1
    Cell: B6
Comment: It is the intention to link this performance report spreadsheet to the Quality Performance Spreadsheet.
          It is a planned future enhancement

    Cell: A7
Comment: Systems
          It is a requirement of the prequalification system for contractors to have systems in place to gain prequalification with Main Roads. This section of the Performance report seeks to ascertain whether
          the systems are being submitted but more importantly that they are being used to help manage the projects.

    Cell: B7
Comment: Quality Management Systems

           SCORE 0/1:
           Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of the issues listed below:
           • Not competent in process.
           • Failure to manage in accordance with defined plans.
           • Inadequate planning of processes, operations, verification and documentation requirements.
           • Hold and witness points and notifications to superintendent/principal's representative not adequately managed.
           • Repeated serious non-conformances in work delivered.
           • Evidence that contractor has attempted to hide poor quality work.
           • Failure to rectify serious non-conformances.
           • Audit reports indicate significant failure of quality system and/or loss of certification or substantial corrective action.
           • Failure to establish and maintain project records in accordance with approved plan.
           • Failure to maintain essential contract documents, project plans, management system and procedure documentation, reference documents (standards, etc) on-site in accordance with approved
           project quality plans.
           • Excessive delays in providing documentary information regarding the contract.
           • Use of superseded drawings.

           SCORE 2:
           - Partially competent.
           - Tries to perform but lacking in capability.
           - Processes are not consistent nor managed well.
           - Repetitions of the same non-conformance type with moderate consequences.

           SCORE 3:
           - Competent but not proactive.
           - Willing to perform but requires "coaching" from superintendent/principal's representative team to achieve quality objectives of contract.
           - Minor deficiencies in process management.
           - Repetitions of the same non-conformance type although minor in consequence.

           SCORE 4:
           - Meets expectations and requirements.
           - Competent in all aspects of process.
           - Low numbers of repetitions of the same non-conformance type.
           - Non-conformances almost always reported promptly and effectively.

           SCORE 5:
           - Competent and consistently performs to a very high standard on quality management issues.
           - Excellent reports from quality audits.
           - Low numbers of non-conformances (below past experience for similar projects) and extremely low numbers of repetitions of the same non-conformance type.
           - Non-conformances always reported promptly and effectively
           - Contractual and prequalification system requirements exceeded.
           - Quality system is used proactively to improve quality
                                                                                                                                                                                                   Form C6876
    Cell: B8                                                                                                                                                                                       Version 9/06
Comment: Environmental Management Systems                                                                                                                                                               Page 1
         SCORE 0/1:
         Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of the issues listed below:
         • Inadequate approach for risks and hazard assessment, processes for monitoring and review of defined controls, targets, etc.
         • Inadequate erosion and sediment control plans and/or implementation or follow up.
         • Failure to obtain licences and other approvals and/or failure to comply with defined conditions.
         • Inadequate response to incidents and/or accidents.
         • Severe environmental damage on-site resulting in successful injunctions/prosecution.
         • Evidence that contractor has attempted to hide or "cover up" environmental incidents.
         • Failure to immediately rectify environment damage.
         • EPA issues Environmental Protection Order.
         • Repeated warnings or instructions by Superintendent ignored.

         SCORE 2:
         - Partially competent.
         - Tries to perform but lacking in capability.
         - Processes are not consistent or well managed.
         - Repetitions of the same non-conformance type with moderate consequences.

         SCORE 3:
         - Competent but not proactive with respect to the management of environmental issues.
         - Willing to perform but requires "coaching" from superintendent/principal's representative team to achieve environmental management objectives of the contract.
         - Repetitions of the same non-conformance type although minor in consequence.

         SCORE 4:
         - Good EMPC that fully complies with all contractual and prequalification system requirements.
         - Low number of repetitions of the same non-conformance type .
         - Incidents and accidents are almost always reported and addressed promptly and effectively.
         - Environmental matters approached proactively and with sensitivity.

         SCORE 5:
         - Excellent Environmental Management Plan Construction (EMPC).
         - Competent and consistently performs to a very high standard on environmental management issues.
         - Low number of non-conformances (relative to past experience for similar projects), and no repetition of the same non-conformance type.
         - Incidents and accidents are always reported and addressed promptly and effectively.
         - Excellent reports from environmental management audits.
         - Contractual and prequalification system requirements exceeded.




    Cell: B9
Comment: Safety Management Systems

         SCORE 0/1:
         Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of the issues listed below:
         - Not competent in process.
         - Non-conformance and incidents poorly reported.
         - Evidence that contractor has attempted to hide incidents.
         - Poor Safety Plan and implementation of the plan.
         - Inadequate approach for risk and hazard assessment, processes for monitoring and review of defined controls, targets, etc.
         - Inadequate response to incidents and/or accidents.
         - Issue of adverse statutory/coroner report after significant accidents/injuries on-site.                                                                          Form C6876
         - Issue of WH&S Prohibition Notices.                                                                                                                               Version 9/06
         - WH&S Improvement Notices not acted on.                                                                                                                                Page 1
          - Repeated warnings or instructions by superintendent/principal's representative ignored.

          SCORE 2:
          - Partially competent.
          - Tries to perform but lacking in capability or understanding of contractual and legislative safety requirements.
          - Processes are not consistent nor well managed.
          - Repetitions of the same incident type with moderate consequences (eg. minor injuries or damage).
          - Incidents generally poorly reported.

          SCORE 3:
          - Competent but not proactive
          - Willing to perform but requires "coaching" from superintendent/principal's representative team to achieve safety requirements of the contract.
          - Minor deficiencies in process management.
          - Repetitions of the same incident type although minor in consequence.

          SCORE 4:
          - Meets expectations and contractual requirements - good safety plan and implementation of the plan.
          - Competent in all aspects of process.
          - Low number of repetitions of the same incident type.
          - Non-conformance and incidents almost always reported promptly and effectively addressed.

          SCORE 5:
          - Competent and consistently performs to a very high standard on safety management issues.
          - Excellent reports from site safety audits.
          - Low numbers of safety incidents (below past experience for similar projects) and no repetitions of the same incident type.
          - Excellent Safety Plan.
          - Contractual and prequalification system requirements exceeded.

    Cell: B10
Comment: Cultural Heritage Systems

          SCORE 0:
          - Failure to identify sensitive and/or significant issues and features.
          - Significant damage and/or blatant disregard for sensitive and/or significant features.
          - Consistent failure to comply with directions from cultural heritage officer.

          SCORE 1:
          - Non-conformance and incidents poorly reported and actioned.

          SCORE 2:
          - Non-conformance and incidents generally poorly reported and actioned.

          SCORE 3:
          - Non-conformance and incidents almost always reported and actioned promptly and effectively but requires significant guidance from superintendent/principal's representative.
          - Does not proactively manage cultural heritage issues.

          SCORE 4:
          - Non-conformance and incidents almost always reported and actioned promptly and effectively.

          SCORE 5:
          - Non-conformance, accidents and incidents always reported and actioned promptly and effectively.
          - Full compliance with directions from cultural heritage officer.

                                                                                                                                                                                           Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                           Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                Page 1
    Cell: B11
Comment: Traffic Management Systems

          SCORE 0/1:
          - Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of the issues listed below:
          • Failure to define and/or implement safe and effective traffic management arrangements throughout project.
          • Poor record of traffic incidents and/or accidents.
          • Issue of adverse reports against contractor by Police or Coroner.
          • An excessive number of minor non-conformances, incidents or accidents.
          . Major incidents which are the result of inappropriate traffic management arrangements by the contractor.
          • Incidents almost always poorly reported and addressed.
          • Repeated warnings or instructions by superintendent ignored.

          SCORE 2:
          - Partially competent.
          - Tries to perform but lacking in capability and understanding of contractual requirements.
          - Processes are not consistent nor well managed.
          - A moderate number of incidents with moderate consequences - no major incidents or accidents.
          - Incidents are often poorly reported and addressed.

          SCORE 3:
          - Competent but not proactive.
          - Willing to perform but requires "coaching" from superintendent/principal's representative team to achieve traffic management requirements of the contract.
          - A moderate number of non-conformances or incidents although minor in consequence.
          - Reporting and management of issues is just adequate.

          SCORE 4:
          - Implementation of traffic management system meets all contractual and prequalification requirements.
          - Competent in all aspects of process.
          - Low number and severity of non-conformances, incidents and accidents (consistent with industry averages for similar projects) - includes minor property damage but no major property damage, no
          injuries and no deaths.
          - Incidents almost always reported and addressed promptly and effectively.

          SCORE 5:
          - Excellent standard of traffic management plans and compliance with plans. Standard and maintenance of traffic control equipment is excellent.
          - Contractual and prequalification system requirements are exceeded.
          - Excellent reports from traffic management audits.
          - No project caused incidents and accidents (below industry averages for similar projects) and extremely low repetitions of the same non-conformance type.
          - No major incidents and accidents.
          - Incidents always reported and addressed promptly and effectively.

    Cell: B12
Comment: Training Policy Met

          SCORE 0:
          - Did not comply with 10% Training Policy requirements.
          - Blatant disregard for the policy.

          SCORE 1:
          - Reports not lodged                                                                                                                                                              Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                            Version 9/06
          SCORE 2:                                                                                                                                                                               Page 1
          - Reports lodged but not on time.

          SCORE 3:
          - 10% Training Policy requirements met but only after intervention from Superintendent/Principal's Representative or Principal.
          - Did not comply with 10% Training Policy requirements due to circumstances largely beyond the contractor's control.
          - Reports lodged on time.
          SCORE 4:
          - 10% Training Policy requirements fully met and reports lodged.

          SCORE 5:
          - 10% Training Policy requirements exceeded and reports lodged.

    Cell: A14
Comment: This section seeks to provide some assessment of the competencies of the people employed by contractors

    Cell: B14
Comment: Contractor's Team Knowledge and Understanding of Documents

          SCORE 0:
          - Repeated serious issues involving incorrect interpretation of contract documents/specifications.
          - "Show Cause" notice issued under the General Conditions of Contract.

          SCORE 1:
          - Frequent and re-occurring minor issues involving incorrect interpretation of contract documents/specifications.
          - Infrequent serious issues involving incorrect interpretation of contract documents due to failure of the contractor to understand the requirements of the contract documents or specifications.

          SCORE 2:
          - Several minor issues involving incorrect interpretation of contract documents/specifications.

          SCORE 3:
          - Minor issues associated with misunderstanding or incorrect interpretation of contract documents / specifications.
          - Not significantly impacting on success of project.

          SCORE 4:
          - Sound knowledge of contract documents and specifications.
          - All contractual obligations and specification requirements met.

          SCORE 5:
          - Excellent knowledge and understanding of contract documents and specifications.
          - Awareness of limitations of standard contract documentation and specifications and preparedness to overcome such limitations minimising the impact to the principal.
          - Early identification of any inconsistencies or errors in documentation (preferably prior to close of tenders) and Principal advised.

    Cell: B15
Comment: Contractual timeframes

          SCORE 0:
          - Failing to meet a contractual obligation within the prescribed timeframe resulting in a substantial breach of contract and/or termination of the contract.
          - Failure to inform the superintendent/principal's representative of significant milestones and hold points.

          SCORE 1:
          - Contractual obligations not met within the prescribed time limits on many occasions and having a moderate impact on the project.

          SCORE 2:
          - Contractual obligations often not met within the prescribed time limits but only having a small impact on the project.                                                                  Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Version 9/06
          SCORE 3:                                                                                                                                                                                       Page 1
          - Contractual obligations generally within the prescribed time limit.
          - Some notices/claims etc lodged late but minimal impact on contract.

          SCORE 4:
          - Contractual obligations almost always met by the prescribed time limit.
          - Issuing of notices etc by the prescribed time.

          SCORE 5:
          - Contractual obligations met head of the prescribed timeframe.
          - Issuing of notices etc ahead of the prescribed time.
          - Early warning of potential design errors or omissions.
          - Early warning of possible variations.




    Cell: B16
Comment: Construction Techniques

          SCORE 0:
          - Inappropriate construction techniques used most of the time leading to substantial breach of contract/termination.
          - Performance necessitates inordinate extent of supervision and/or surveillance.
          - Failure to have key personnel with specified qualifications/experience on site at appropriate times.

          SCORE 1:
          - Inappropriate construction techniques used on many occasions with significant impact on the project.
          - Excessive supervision required
          - Contractor seeks advice from Superintendent on extremely frequent occasions

          SCORE 2:
          - Inappropriate construction techniques often used with minimal impact on project. For example, activity takes a lot longer than it needed to, but not on critical path, so did not delay project
          completion.
          - Several minor disruptions/incidents relating to equipment or resources.
          - Supervision required was slightly more than what would be expected for this type of project.

          SCORE 3:
          - Occasionally inappropriate construction techniques used with minimal impact on overall project.
          - Minor and infrequent issues relating to equipment and resources.
          - Supervision required was in line with expectations

          SCORE 4:
          - Project fully meets specification requirements.
          - Adequate equipment and resources.
          - Effective use of available equipment and resources.
          - Average down time due to illness/injury or equipment breakdowns.                                                                                                                          Form C6876
          - Supervision required was slightly less than expected for this type of project.                                                                                                            Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Page 1
          SCORE 5:
          - Innovative and advanced construction techniques used to deliver a superior product, modern equipment and highly skilled resources.
          - Backup resources to cover for illness/injury.
          - Proactive maintenance of equipment with better than average down time.
          - Supervision required was minimal compared to industry norms for this type of project.




    Cell: B17
Comment: Management and payment of subcontractors and suppliers

          SCORE 0/1:
          Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of the issues listed below:
          • Several major issues involving management of subcontractors with significant impact on project.
          • Failure to apply management system and project quality plan provisions to activities of subcontractors and suppliers.
          • Absence or poor use of purchasing planning techniques and associated processes and controls.
          • Inadequate and/or consistently late submissions for approval of subcontractors or nominated suppliers.
          • Significant disruption to the program due to unsatisfactory performance by subcontractors and suppliers.
          • Consistent failure of subcontractors and suppliers to meet contractual requirements.

          SCORE 2:
          - Contractual requirements wrt payment of subcontractors suppliers and workers are not met regularly.
          - Frequent minor issues or single major issue involving management of subcontractors with moderate impact on project.
          - Contractor's Statutory Declaration often not submitted with progress claims.
          - Poor management of subcontractor's performance
          - More than one BCIPA adjudication decision given against contractor (relating to subcontractor payment disputes)

          SCORE 3:
          - Contractual requirements wrt payment of subcontractors suppliers and workers are generally met.
          - Occasional minor issues involving management of subcontractors with minimal overall impact on project.
          - Contractor's Statutory Declaration sometimes not submitted with progress claims.
          - No more than one BCIPA adjudication decision given against contractor (relating to subcontractor payment disputes)

          SCORE 4:
          - All Contractual requirements wrt payment of subcontractors suppliers almost always met.
          - Good management and coordination of subcontractors.
          - Contractor's Statutory Declaration nearly always submitted with progress claims but requires "chasing up" from superintendent/principal's representative.
          - Few, if any BCIPA claims or subcontractor's Notices raised against contractor.

          SCORE 5:
          - Subcontractor supplier payment terms are back-to-back with head contract and subcontractors suppliers always paid on time.
          - Demonstrated effective working relationships with all subcontractors with favourable feedback received from subcontractors.
          - Excellent management and coordination of subcontractors.
          - Excellent control of the performance and work processes of subcontractors.
          - No decisions given against the contractor relating to BCIPA claims or subcontractor's Notices.

    Cell: B18                                                                                                                                                           Form C6876
Comment: Project and Program management                                                                                                                                 Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                             Page 1
           SCORE 0/1:
           Variance between 0 and 1 will depend on the severity of the issue:
           - Submission of construction program and updates frequently not in accordance with the contract and/or frequently not followed by contractor significantly impacting on the project delivery. Program
           not submitted. Monthly rolling programs not submitted
           - Several critical activities delayed due to poor project management causing the project to be significantly delayed overall
           - Substantial breach of contract due to time delays/lack of progress resulting in the issue of a Show Cause Notice under the General Conditions of Contract.
           - Termination of the contract for failing to proceed with due expedition and without delay.
           - Frequent staff turnover, especially in key personnel and ineffective project organisation structure.
           - Inadequate provision of personnel with required expertise, experience and qualifications, and/or definition of responsibilities.

           SCORE 2:
           - Submission of construction program and updates often not in accordance with the contract or often not followed by the contractor.
           - A large number of non-critical activities and/or a small number of critical activities delayed as a result of poor project management causing the project to be delayed overall.
           - Staff generally poorly managed and staff turnover high.

           SCORE 3:
           - Submission of construction program and updates mostly in accordance with the contract and followed by the contractor most of the time.
           - A small number of non-critical activities delayed as a result of poor project management, however, contract delivered on time overall.
           - Contractor generally not proactive or forward thinking with respect to programming issues or resource requirements.
           - Turnover of staff not always well managed but no significant impacts on project.

           SCORE 4:
           - Contractual requirements fully met.
           - Submission of construction program and updates in accordance with contract and followed by contractor.
           - Project delivered on time and by the Date For Practical Completion.

           SCORE 5:
           - Proactive approach to project management. Issues raised well in advance of required program date.
           - Effective development and implementation of construction program.
           - Forward thinking approach - early identification of issues potentially impacting program and contingencies/mitigation strategies in place.
           - Demonstrated flexibility in adapting construction process/program to changing needs as project evolves.
           - Staff managed very well and staff turnover is low.
           - Superior allocation of resources to deliver project ahead of time at no additional cost to principal.

    Cell: A20
Comment: It is intended that superintendents will have to be registered with Main Roads to perform their role in a similar manner to construction contractors.
          As the contract performance relies on the capabilities of both the Contractor and the Superintendent to perform their respective roles competently, it is important that the performance of the
          Superintendent's team is also assessed.

    Cell: B20
Comment: Superintendent's team Knowledge and Understanding of Documents

           SCORE 0:
           - Repeated serious issues involving incorrect interpretation of contract documents/specifications by the superintendent / principal's representative.
           - “Show cause” notice issued by the contractor under the General Conditions of Contract.
           - Repeated serious issues involving incorrect interpretation of contract documents/specifications.
           - Breach of contract resulting in show cause/termination.

           SCORE 1:
           - Frequent and re-occurring minor issues involving incorrect interpretation of contract documents/specifications.
           - Infrequent serious issues involving incorrect interpretation of contract documents/specifications due to failure of the superintendent/principal's representative to fully understand the requirements of
           the contract documents or specifications.

           SCORE 2:                                                                                                                                                                                    Form C6876
           - Several minor issues involving incorrect interpretation of contract documents/ specifications.                                                                                            Version 9/06
           - Not consistently adopting the role of independent verifier; favouring one party or the other.                                                                                                  Page 1
          - Interpretations causing frustration to Contractor/ Principal.

          SCORE 3:
          - Minor issues associated with misunderstanding or incorrect interpretation of contract documents/ specifications.
          - Not significantly impacting on success of project.

          SCORE 4:
          - Sound knowledge of contract documents and specifications.
          - All contractual obligations met.
          - Superintendent understands role of independent verifier.

          SCORE 5:
          - Excellent knowledge and understanding of contract documents and specifications.
          - Awareness of limitations of standard contract documentation and specifications and preparedness to work with contractor to overcome such limitations minimising the impact to the principal.
          - Early identification of any inconsistencies or errors in documentation.




    Cell: B21
Comment: Superintendent's Team Performance wrt contractual timeframes

          SCORE 0:
          - Consistently failing to meet significant contractual obligation within the prescribed timeframe having a significant impact on the delivery of the project.

          SCORE 1:
          - Contractual obligations not met within the prescribed time limits on many occasions and having a moderate impact on the project. Confusion between roles of Principal and Superintendent

          SCORE 2:
          - Contractual obligations often not met within the prescribed time limits but only having a small impact on the project.

          SCORE 3:
          - Contractual obligations generally met within the prescribed time limit.
          - Some notices/claims issued late but minimal impact on contract.
          -

          SCORE 4:
          - Contractual obligations met by the prescribed time limit.
          - Issuing of notices etc by the prescribed time.

          SCORE 5:
          - Contractual obligations met ahead of the prescribed timeframe.
          - Issuing of notices etc ahead of the prescribed time.
          - Early warning of potential design errors and omissions.
          - Early warning of possible principal ordered variations.
          - Early warning of scope changes.

    Cell: B22
Comment: Superintendent's Team application of Engineering Judgement

          SCORE 0:                                                                                                                                                                              Form C6876
          - Lack of application of engineering judgement                                                                                                                                        Version 9/06
          - Never considers merits of alternative construction methods.                                                                                                                              Page 1
          - Insists on contract requirements when clearly inappropriate.

          SCORE 1:
          - Application of poor engineering judgement and rarely considers merits of alternative construction methods.
          - Decisions not based on sound construction practice leading to re-work/ premature failure etc
          - Lack of experience in construction resulted in poor decisions.

          SCORE 2:
          - Application of fair engineering judgement and sometimes considers merits of alternative construction methods.
          - Generally showed lack of timely responsiveness to design difficulties.
          - Refers all matters to others (Designer/Principal) for decision

          SCORE 3:
          - Application of good engineering judgement and often considers merits of alternative construction methods.
          - Good understanding of Project requirements

          SCORE 4:
          - Sound knowledge of engineering principles, construction techniques, plant and equipment capabilities and production rates and demonstrated ability to apply this knowledge in making project
          related decisions.
          - Good understanding of costing variations.

          SCORE 5:
          - Excellent knowledge of engineering principles, construction techniques, plant and equipment capabilities and production rates.
          - Always considers merits of alternative construction methods.
          - Superintendent/principal's representative always knows when it is appropriate to seek assistance from technical specialists/experts.
          - Prompt and considered decision making backed by sound technical argument and logic.


    Cell: B23
Comment: Superintendent's fairness and reasonableness

          SCORE 0:
          - Not competent to perform duties.
          - Contractual obligations frequently not met.
          - Does not act honestly and/or frequently does not act fairly .
          - Frequently does not act within a reasonable time on significant issues.
          - Frequently does not arrive at a reasonable measure or value of work, quantities or time on significant issues or work items.

          SCORE 1:
          - Always acts honestly but decisions frequently considered to be unfair on minor issues and occasionally on major issues.
          - Frequently does not act within a reasonable time on minor issues and occasionally on major issues.
          - Frequently does not arrive at a reasonable measure or value of work, quantities or time on minor issues or work items and occasionally on major issues or work items.
          - Fails to make decisions.

          SCORE 2:
          - Always acts honestly but a number of decisions considered to be unfair by the contractor on minor issues.
          - Often does not act within a reasonable timeframe but mostly on minor issues.
          - Often does not arrive at a reasonable measure or value of work, quantities or time but mostly on minor issues or work items.

          SCORE 3:
          - More reactive then proactive.
          - Obligations under contract generally met.
          - Always acts honestly and mostly fairly.
          - Mostly acts within a reasonable time frame.                                                                                                                                        Form C6876
          - Mostly arrives at a reasonable measure or value of work, quantities or time.                                                                                                       Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Page 1
           SCORE 4:
           - Superintendent / principal's representative's obligations under the contract are fully met (in particular Clause 23 of the General Conditions of Contract).
           - Superintendent acts honestly and fairly.
           - Superintendent acts within the specified or reasonable time frames.
           - Superintendent arrives at a reasonable measure or value of work, quantities or time.

           SCORE 5:
           - Superintendent / principal's representative administers contract proactively not reactively.
           - Always acts honestly and fairly.
           - Always acts within a reasonable time if no time is prescribed in the contract.
           - Always arrives at a reasonable measure or value of work, quantities or time.
           - Always considers the implications of any decision on both the contractor and the principal and applies extensive knowledge of engineering principles and the contract document in making equitable
           decisions.

    Cell: A25
Comment:
          Relationships are reliant upon both parties and heavily dependent upon the experience and maturity (and personalities) of the Contractor and Superintendent and their representatives.

           In most contracts the responsibility for liaison with the media is the responsibility of the Principal.
           The Contractor's performance in managing stakeholders is limited to the requirements of the contract and any relevant Supplementary Specifications.

    Cell: B25
Comment: Open and honest communication

           SCORE 0/1:
           Score of 0 or 1 depends on the severity of the issues below-
           - Open and honest communication never/rarely displayed.
           - Unsatisfactory relationships between contractor and superintendent/principal's representative, Principal and/or their representative.
           - Complete breakdown in communications significantly impacting upon the time, cost or quality of the project.

           SCORE 2:
           - Open and honest communication occasionally displayed.
           - Contractual positions always relied upon to determine outcomes.

           SCORE 3:
           - Open and honest communication generally displayed.
           - Average working relationship but contractual positions often relied upon to determine outcomes.

           SCORE 4:
           - Open and honest communication always displayed.
           - Good working relationships established and maintained.
           - Good level of commitment to project by all parties.

           SCORE 5:
           - Open and honest communication always displayed.
           - Complete level of trust.
           - Issues freely discussed.
           - Mistakes openly and promptly admitted and sound engineering solutions determined collaboratively .

    Cell: B26
Comment: Working together

           SCORE 0/1:
           Score of 0 or 1 depends on severity of issue.                                                                                                                                        Form C6876
           - Generally unco-operative and unwilling attitude displayed by the parties most of the time.                                                                                         Version 9/06
           - Unpleasant work environment.                                                                                                                                                            Page 1
          - Major issues often not resolved quickly with significant impact on project.
          - Stubborn and inflexible attitudes frequently displayed by both parties.

          SCORE 2:
          - Co-operative and willing attitude frequently not displayed by the parties buy mainly on minor issues.
          - Minor issues frequently not resolved quickly with moderate impact on project.

          SCORE 3:
          - Parties generally committed to project.
          - Co-operative and willing attitude often displayed by the parties.
          - Issues often resolved quickly with minor impact on project.

          SCORE 4:
          - Commitment to project by all parties.
          - Partnering arrangements or principles used on project and almost always effective.
          - Co-operative and willing attitude almost always displayed by all parties.
          - Issues almost always resolved quickly without any significant impact on project.

          SCORE 5:
          - High level of commitment to project by all parties.
          - Parties working together proactively to achieve "best for project" outcomes.
          - Partnering arrangements used effectively for the entire project.
          - Co-operative and willing attitude always displayed by all parties.
          - Issues quickly resolved without any major impact on project.

    Cell: B27
Comment: Relationship with stakeholders

          SCORE 0/1:
          Score of 0 or 1 depends on severity of issue -
          - Stakeholders rarely kept informed of issues in general and often not informed of critical or significant issues.
          - Significant issues involving stakeholders often not well managed in accordance with the contract or prequalification system requirements.
          - Frequent negative feedback from stakeholders.
          - Adverse media coverage or political embarrassment resulting from poor management of stakeholder relationships by contractor.

          SCORE 2:
          - Stakeholders often not kept informed of minor issues and occasionally not informed of critical or significant issues.
          - Minor issues involving stakeholders frequently not well managed in accordance with the contract or prequalification system requirements.
          - Some negative feedback from stakeholders.
          - Critical issues/decisions occasionally poorly negotiated with stakeholders.

          SCORE 3:
          - Adequate stakeholder management / interaction, but generally not proactive.

          SCORE 4:
          - Contractual and prequalification obligations fully met.
          - Stakeholders almost always kept informed of relevant project related matters.
          - Relevant notices given to stakeholders in accordance with the contract.
          - Stakeholder input almost always fully considered.
          - Generally positive feedback from stakeholders.
          - Critical issues/decisions nearly always successfully negotiated with stakeholders.

          SCORE 5:
          - All stakeholders kept fully informed of relevant project related matters at all times.                                                      Form C6876
          - Advance notice or early warning of significant issues always given.                                                                         Version 9/06
          - Stakeholder input always fully considered.                                                                                                       Page 1
          - Positive feedback from stakeholders.
          - Critical issues/decisions always successfully negotiated with stakeholders.

    Cell: A29
Comment: Disputes refer to relevant clause of GCoC

          Claims in this context refer mainly to contractual claims such as:-
               Delay and Disruption
               Latent Conditions
               Prolongation / Acceleration
               Ambiguity etc
          .
          Claims such as Progress Claims are only considered where there are repeated problems with for example, supporting documentation

    Cell: B29
Comment: Dispute Management

          SCORE 0/1:
          Score of 0 or 1 depends on severity of issue -
          - Large number of frivolous claims
          - Many disputes or disputed claims.
          - Disputes significantly impacted upon the delivery of the project (eg. time/cost performance).
          - Arbitration or litigation decisions almost totally in favour of the principal.

          SCORE 2:
          - Several minor disputes and/or occasional significant disputes or disputed claims.
          - Disputes or disputed claims require extended time and cost to resolve.
          - Arbitration or litigation needed to resolve disputes - could not be resolved by superintendent/principal's representative and/or principal.
          - Resolution of claims/disputes substantially in favour of principal.

          SCORE 3:
          - No major contractual disputes.
          - Some minor disputes or disputed claims.
          - Claims/disputes require an extended time to resolve.
          - Claims/disputes were resolved relatively equally.

          SCORE 4:
          - No contractual disputes or small number of contractual disputes typically minor in nature and resolved substantially in favour of contractor.
          - Disputes/disputed claims always resolved or settlement negotiated promptly with minimal impact on the delivery of the project.
          - Disputes/disputed claims always resolved or settlement negotiated within the contract period.

          SCORE 5:
          - No contractual disputes or those disputes which were lodged were resolved almost totally in favour of contractor.

    Cell: B30
Comment: Claim Management

          SCORE 0/1:
          Score of 0 or 1 depends on severity of issue -
          - Documentation submitted by contractor in support of claims is frequently of a poor standard (eg lacking in specificity and detail; unclear references to relevant sections of claim).
          - Contractor frequently submitted insufficient information for claims to be processed.
          - Contains largely irrelevant information.
          - Claims never discussed prior to sub mission
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Form C6876
          SCORE 2:                                                                                                                                                                                  Version 9/06
          - Superintendent/principal's representative frequently has to "chase up" minor additional supporting information or occasionally has to request significant additional information.            Page 1
           - Usually supporting documentation is of an adequate standard when forthcoming.
           - Claims seldom discussed prior to submission

           SCORE 3:
           - Documentation submitted by contractor in support of claims is generally adequate.
           - Occasionally, superintendent/principal's representative needs to "chase up" minor additional supporting information .
           - Claims generally discussed prior to submission but not always submitted as agreed.

           SCORE 4:
           - Good documentation submitted by contractor in support of claims.
           - Documentation always attached to claim with clear references to relevant sections of claim.
           - Claims generally discussed and agreed prior to submission

           SCORE 5:
           - Excellent documentation always submitted by contractor in support of claims.
           - Documentation always clear, concise and set out in a logical fashion with very clear references to relevant parts of claim.
           - Claims always discussed and agreed prior to submission.

    Cell: A32
Comment: Where design issues have been identified in the performance of the contract, the prequalification committee can take this into account in the overall assessment of the performance of contractors,
          and superintendents.

    Cell: B32
Comment: Design Performance

           SCORE 0:
           - Frequent significant design errors/omissions resulting in increased costs of supervision to measure up and agree new quantities.
           - Significant impact on constructability.
           - Plans difficult to interpret.
           - Significant contribution to approved variations.
           - Significant impact on project completion timing as design queries took extended periods to answer.
           - Errors/omissions caused significant difficulties to construction contractor.

           SCORE 1:
           - Several minor and occasional major design defects or omissions.
           - Moderate impact on construction contractor due to delay in receiving answers to design queries.
           - Moderate cost increase to Principal.
           - Plans difficult to interpret.
           - Limits of accuracy were exceeded on many occasions.

           SCORE 2:
           - Large number of generally minor errors/omissions.
           - Construction contractor experienced some difficulties as a result of the errors/omissions.
           - Design queries were not always answered in accordance with contract documents.

           SCORE 3:
           - Some errors and omissions.
           - Minor delays to program as a result of the errors/omissions.
           - Minor increase in cost to Principal.
           - Plans able to be interpreted readily on most occasions.
           - Design queries were answered in accordance with the contract documents.

           SCORE 4:
           - Minor errors/omissions.                                                                                                                                                           Form C6876
           - No significant impact on overall quality of project.                                                                                                                              Version 9/06
           - Design errors/omissions did not cause any difficulties for the construction contractor or subcontractors.                                                                              Page 1
- Design errors or omissions did not result in any significant variations to the contract or increase in cost.
- Design queries were answered promptly by the designers

SCORE 5:
- No design errors or omissions or those that did occur could not be foreseen / were minor
- Extra effort made by the designers to make plans easy to interpret by construction personnel.




                                                                                                                 Form C6876
                                                                                                                 Version 9/06
                                                                                                                      Page 1
Contract Details & Comments
Date of this Performance                                 Date of next monthly site
Report                                                   meeting


Contract Number



ONLY COMPLETE ON FINAL REPORT
Date OF Practical                                        Value of Progress
Completion                                               Certificates Issued

Value of Approved
                                                         Value of Disputed Variations
Variations



Overall Comments by the Superintendent:-




Name:-                                          Signature:-                             Date:-   /   /



Overall Comments by the Contractor:-




Name:-                                          Signature:-                             Date:-   /   /



Overall comments by the Principals Delegate:-




Name:-                                          Signature:-                             Date:-   /   /   Form C6876
                                                                                                         Version 9/06
                                                                                                              Page 2
Table G2 –
Criteria for
Assessment of
Performance
                                                                                                            Criteria for Assessment
   Assessment             Assessment                                                                                                                                                                    Some Examples of Evidence
   Categories               Criteria          Score 0                  Score 1                    Score 2                 Score 3                   Score 4                  Score 5                          Requirements
                                                Unsatisfactory                   Poor                 Marginal                 Satisfactory                   Good              Excellent
 (1) Application of   Quality management      Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of     Partially competent.     Competent but not         Meets expectations      Competent and             Copies of compliance and/or
      Systems         system meeting          the issues listed below:                                                    proactive.                and requirements.       consistently performs     certification auditor's reports.
                      contractual and         • Not competent in process.                        Tries to perform but                                                       to a very high standard
                      prequalification        • Failure to manage in accordance with defined     lacking in capability.   Willing to perform but    Competent in all        on quality management     Non-compliance with contract
                      requirements and used   plans.                                                                      requires "coaching"       aspects of process.     issues.                   requirements and project quality plan.
                                              • Inadequate planning of processes, operations,    Processes are not        from superintendent /
                                              verification and documentation requirements.       consistent nor well      principal's               Low numbers of          Excellent reports from Lot records, test results survey and
                                              • Hold and witness points and notifications to     managed.                 representative team to    repetitions of the same quality audits.        other measurements, non-
                                              superintendent / principal's representative not                             achieve quality           non-conformance type.                          conformance reports and registers.
                                              adequately managed.                                Repetitions of the       objectives of contract.                           Very low numbers of
                                              • Repeated serious non-conformances in work        same non-                                          Non-conformances        non-conformances and
                                              delivered.                                         conformance type with    Minor deficiencies in     almost always reported no repetitions of the
                                              • Evidence that contractor has attempted to hide   moderate                 process management.       promptly and            same non-
                                              poor quality work.                                 consequences.                                      effectively.            conformance type.
                                              • Failure to rectify serious non-conformances.                              Repetitions of the
                                              • Audit reports indicate significant failure of                             same non-                                         Non-conformances
                                              quality system and/or loss of certification or                              conformance type                                  always reported
                                              substantial corrective action.                                              although minor in                                 promptly and
                                              • Failure to establish and maintain project                                 consequence.                                      effectively.
                                              records in accordance with approved plan.
                                              • Failure to maintain essential contract                                                                                      Contractual and
                                              documents, project plans, management system                                                                                   prequalification system
                                              and procedure documentation, reference                                                                                        requirements
                                              documents (standards, etc) on-site in                                                                                         exceeded.
                                              accordance with approved project quality plans.
                                              • Excessive delays in providing documentary                                                                                   System is used pro-
                                              information regarding the contract.                                                                                           actively to improve
                                              • Use of superseded drawings.                                                                                                 quality




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Page 3
                                                                                                           Criteria for Assessment
  Assessment             Assessment                                                                                                                                                                     Some Examples of Evidence
  Categories               Criteria         Score 0                  Score 1                     Score 2                 Score 3                  Score 4                    Score 5                          Requirements
                                              Unsatisfactory                   Poor                  Marginal                 Satisfactory                  Good                Excellent
(1) Application of   Environmental          Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of      Partially competent.     Competent but not        Good EMPC that fully      Excellent                 Summaries of any EPA site
     Systems         management system      the issues listed below:                                                     proactive with respect   complies with all         Environmental             discussions and copies of
                     meeting contractual    • Inadequate approach for risks and hazard          Tries to perform but     to the management of     contractual and           Management Plan           Environmental Protection orders
                     and prequalification   assessment, processes for monitoring and            lacking in capability.   environmental issues.    prequalification system   Construction (EMPC).      served under environmental legislation.
                     requirements used      review of defined controls, targets, etc.                                                             requirements.
                                            • Inadequate erosion and sediment control plans     Processes are not        Willing to perform but                           Competent and               Copies of injunctions granted, court
                                            and/or implementation or follow up.                 consistent nor well      requires "coaching"      Low number of           consistently performs       orders.
                                            • Failure to obtain licences and other approvals    managed.                 from superintendent /    repetitions of the same to a very high standard     Evidence of repeat complaints from
                                            and/or failure to comply with defined conditions.                            principal's              non-conformance type. on environmental              adjacent community
                                            • Inadequate response to incidents and/or           Repetitions of the       representative team to                           management issues.
                                            accidents.                                          same non-                achieve environmental    Incidents and
                                            • Severe environmental damage on-site               conformance type with    management               accidents are always    Very low number of
                                            resulting in successful injunctions/prosecution.    moderate                 objectives of the        reported and            non-conformances,
                                            • Evidence that contractor has attempted to hide    consequences.            contract.                addressed promptly      and no repetition on the
                                            or "cover up" environmental incidents                                                                 and effectively.        same non-
                                            • Failure to immediately rectify environment                                 Repetitions of the                               conformance type.
                                            damage.                                                                      same non-                Environmental matters
                                            • EPA issues Environmental Protection Order.                                 conformance type         approached proactively Incidents are always
                                            • Repeated warnings or instructions by                                       although minor in        and with sensitivity.   reported and
                                            Superintendent ignored.                                                      consequence.                                     addressed promptly
                                                                                                                                                                          and effectively.

                                                                                                                                                                            Excellent reports from
                                                                                                                                                                            environmental
                                                                                                                                                                            management audits.

                                                                                                                                                                            Contractual and
                                                                                                                                                                            prequalification system
                                                                                                                                                                            requirements
                                                                                                                                                                            exceeded.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Page 4
                                                                                                             Criteria for Assessment
  Assessment             Assessment                                                                                                                                                                           Some Examples of Evidence
  Categories               Criteria          Score 0                   Score 1                     Score 2                   Score 3                    Score 4                   Score 5                           Requirements
                                               Unsatisfactory                    Poor                  Marginal                   Satisfactory                    Good               Excellent
(1) Application of   Safety management       Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of       Partially competent.       Competent but not          Meets expectations       Competent and              Site safety and accident
     Systems         system meeting          the issues listed below:                                                        proactive.                 and contractual          consistently performs      frequency/severity data, and
                     contractual and         • Not competent in process.                          Tries to perform but                                  requirements - good      to a very high standard    comparisons with targets, industry
                     prequalification        • Non-conformance and incidents poorly               lacking in capability or   Willing to perform but     safety plan and          on safety management       norms, etc.
                     requirements and used   reported.                                            understanding of           requires "coaching"        implementation of the    issues.                    Accident reports
                                             • Evidence that contractor has attempted to hide     contractual and            from superintendent /      plan.                                               Safety Audit reports
                                             incidents.                                           legislative safety         principal's                                         Excellent reports from
                                             • Poor Safety Plan and implementation of the         requirements.              representative team to     Competent in all         site safety audits.
                                             plan.                                                                           achieve safety             aspects of process.
                                             • Inadequate approach for risk and hazard            Processes are not          requirements of the                                Very low numbers of
                                             assessment, processes for monitoring and             consistent nor well        contract.                  Low number of           safety incidents and no
                                             review of defined controls, targets, etc.            managed.                                              repetitions of the same repetitions of the same
                                             • Inadequate response to incidents and/or                                       Minor deficiencies in      incident type.          incident type.
                                             accidents.                                           Repetitions of the         process management.
                                             • Issue of adverse statutory / coroner report        same incident type with                               Non-conformance and      Excellent Safety Plan.
                                             after significant accidents/injuries on-site.        moderate                   Repetitions of the         incidents almost
                                             • Issue of WH&S Prohibition Notices.                 consequences (eg.          same incident type         always reported          Contractual and
                                             • WH&S Improvement Notices not acted on.             minor injuries or          although minor in          promptly and             prequalification system
                                             • Repeated warnings or instructions by               damage).                   consequence.               effectively addressed.   requirements
                                             superintendent/principal's representative ignored.                                                                                  exceeded.
                                             • Construction practices adopted which pose a        Incidents generally
                                             significant risk to the safety of roadworkers and    poorly reported.
                                             road users.




(1) Application of   Cultural heritage       Failure to identify       Non-conformance and        Non-conformance and        Non-conformance and        Non-conformance and      Non-conformance,           Copies of injunctions granted, court
     Systems         managed in              sensitive and/or          incidents poorly           incidents generally        incidents almost           incidents almost         accidents and              orders.
                     accordance with         significant issues and    reported and               poorly reported and        always reported and        always reported and      incidents always
                     contract                features.                 actioned.                  actioned.                  actioned promptly and      actioned promptly        reported and               Copies of notices from a cultural
                                                                                                                             effectively but requires   and effectively.         actioned promptly          heritage officer.
                                             Significant damage                                                              significant guidance                                and effectively.
                                             and/or blatant                                                                  from superintendent /
                                             disregard for sensitive                                                         principal's                                         Full compliance with
                                             and/or significant                                                              representative.                                     directions from cultural
                                             features.                                                                                                                           heritage officer.
                                                                                                                             Does not proactively
                                             Consistent failure to                                                           manage cultural
                                             comply with directions                                                          heritage issues.
                                             from cultural heritage
                                             officer.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Page 5
                                                                                                       Criteria for Assessment
  Assessment             Assessment                                                                                                                                                               Some Examples of Evidence
  Categories               Criteria       Score 0                  Score 1                    Score 2                Score 3                  Score 4                    Score 5                        Requirements
                                            Unsatisfactory                   Poor                 Marginal                Satisfactory                  Good                Excellent
(1) Application of   Traffic managed in   Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of     Partially competent.    Competent but not        Implementation of         Excellent standard of   Copies of notices or reports issued by
     Systems         accordance with      the issues listed below:                                                   proactive.               traffic management        traffic management      Police or Coroner.
                     contract             • Failure to define and/or implement safe and      Tries to perform but                             system meets all          plans and compliance Reports of major incidents or accidents
                                          effective traffic management arrangements          lacking in capability   Willing to perform but   contractual and           with plans. Standard
                                          throughout project.                                and understanding of    requires "coaching"      prequalification          and maintenance of
                                          • Poor record of traffic incidents and/or          contractual             from superintendent /    requirements.             traffic control
                                          accidents.                                         requirements.           principal's                                        equipment is excellent.
                                          • Issue of adverse reports against contractor by                           representative team to   Competent in all
                                          Police or Coroner.                                 Processes are not       achieve traffic          aspects of process.       Contractual and
                                          • An excessive number of minor non-                consistent nor well     management                                         prequalification
                                          conformances, incidents or accidents.              managed.                requirements of the      Low number and            system requirements
                                          • Major incidents which are the result of                                  contract.                severity of non-          are exceeded.
                                          inappropriate traffic management arrangements      A moderate number of                             conformances,
                                          by the contractor.                                 incidents with          A moderate number of     incidents and accidents   Excellent reports from
                                          • Incidents almost always poorly reported and      moderate                non-conformances or      (consistent with          traffic management
                                          addressed.                                         consequences - no       incidents although       industry averages for     audits.
                                          • Repeated warnings or instructions by             major incidents or      minor in consequence.    similar projects) -
                                          superintendent ignored.                            accidents.                                       includes minor property   No project caused
                                          • Traffic management practices adopted which                               Reporting and            damage but no major       incidents and
                                          pose a significant risk to the safety of           Incidents are often     management of issues     property damage, no       accidents, and
                                          roadworkers and road users.                        poorly reported and     is just adequate.        injuries and no deaths.   extremely low
                                                                                             addressed.                                                                 repetitions of the same
                                                                                                                                              Incidents almost          non-conformance type.
                                                                                                                                              always reported and
                                                                                                                                              addressed promptly        No major incidents and
                                                                                                                                              and effectively.          accidents.

                                                                                                                                                                        Incidents always
                                                                                                                                                                        reported and
                                                                                                                                                                        addressed promptly
                                                                                                                                                                        and effectively.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Page 6
                                                                                                       Criteria for Assessment
  Assessment             Assessment                                                                                                                                                           Some Examples of Evidence
  Categories               Criteria           Score 0                 Score 1                  Score 2              Score 3                   Score 4                 Score 5                       Requirements
                                                Unsatisfactory                  Poor               Marginal              Satisfactory                   Good             Excellent
(1) Application of   Application of           Did not comply with     Reports not lodged on   Reports lodged but not 10% Training Policy      10% Training Policy    10% Training Policy  Lack of submission of required reports.
     Systems         government policy        10% Training Policy     time                    on time                requirements met but     requirements fully met requirements
                     for the engagement of    requirements.                                                          only after               and reports lodged     exceeded and reports
                     apprentices and                                                                                 intervention from                               lodged
                     trainees (10% Training   Blatant disregard for                                                  superintendent /
                     Policy)                  the policy.                                                            principal's
                                               Reports not lodged                                                    representative or
                                                                                                                     principal.

                                                                                                                    Did not comply with
                                                                                                                    10% Training Policy
                                                                                                                    requirements due to
                                                                                                                    circumstances largely
                                                                                                                    beyond the contractor's
                                                                                                                    control.

                                                                                                                    Reports lodged on time




                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Page 7
Table G2 –
Criteria for
Assessment of
Performance
                                                                                                               Criteria for Assessment
    Assessment             Assessment                                                                                                                                                                      Some Examples of Evidence
    Categories               Criteria             Score 0                  Score 1                   Score 2                       Score 3                  Score 4                                              Requirements
                                                                                                                                                                                  Score 5        Excellent
                                                 Unsatisfactory                 Poor                    Marginal                   Satisfactory                 Good
   (2) Capability /    Knowledge and          Repeated serious           Frequent and re-           Several minor issues       Minor issues               Sound knowledge of      Excellent knowledge           Copy of "show cause" notice under
Experience             understanding of       issues involving           occurring minor            involving incorrect        associated with            contract documents      and understanding of          General Conditions of Contract
 (a) Contractor's Team contract documents /   incorrect interpretation   issues involving           interpretation of          misunderstanding or        and specifications.     contract documents and        (Default or Insolvency).
                       specifications         of contract documents      incorrect interpretation   contract documents /       incorrect interpretation                           specifications.                Claims which are either well,
                                              / specifications.          of contract documents      specifications.            of contract documents      All contractual                                       adequately or badly set out.
                                                                         / specifications.                                     / specifications.          obligations and         Awareness of limitations
                                              "Show Cause" notice                                                                                         specification           of standard contract
                                              issued under the           Infrequent serious                                    Not significantly          requirements met.       documentation and
                                              General Conditions of      issues involving                                      impacting on success                               specifications and
                                              Contract.                  incorrect interpretation                              of project.                                        preparedness to
                                                                         of contract documents                                                                                    overcome such
                                                                         due to failure of the                                                                                    limitations minimising
                                                                         contractor to                                                                                            the impact to the
                                                                         understand the                                                                                           principal.
                                                                         requirements of the
                                                                         contract documents or                                                                                    Early identification of any
                                                                         specifications.                                                                                          inconsistencies or errors
                                                                                                                                                                                  in documentation
                                                                                                                                                                                  (preferably prior to close
                                                                                                                                                                                  of tenders) and Principal
                                                                                                                                                                                  advised.




   (2) Capability /    Contractual            Failing to meet a          Contractual obligations    Contractual obligations    Contractual obligations Contractual obligations Contractual obligations          Copies of dated correspondence
Experience             timeframes met         contractual obligation     not met within the         often not met within       generally within the    met by the              met ahead of the                 confirming time obligations met or
 (a) Contractor's Team                        within the prescribed      prescribed time limits     the prescribed time        prescribed time limit. prescribed time limit. prescribed timeframe.              not met. Site meeting minutes.
                                              timeframe resulting in a   on many occasions          limits but only having a                                                                                                Letters advising missed
                                              substantial breach of      and having a               small impact on the        Some notices / claims      Issuing of notices etc  Issuing of notices etc        time limits
                                              contract and/or            moderate impact on         project.                   etc lodged late but        by the prescribed time. ahead of the prescribed
                                              termination of the         the project.                                          minimal impact on                                  time.
                                              contract.                                                                        contract.
                                                                                                                                                                                  Early warning of
                                              Failure to inform the                                                                                                               potential design errors
                                              superintendent /                                                                                                                    or omissions.
                                              principal's
                                              representative of                                                                                                                   Early warning of
                                              significant milestones                                                                                                              possible variations.
                                              and hold points.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Page 8
                                                                                                           Criteria for Assessment
   Assessment              Assessment                                                                                                                                                                           Some Examples of Evidence
   Categories                Criteria               Score 0                Score 1               Score 2                        Score 3                Score 4                                                        Requirements
                                                                                                                                                                                  Score 5        Excellent
                                                   Unsatisfactory               Poor                Marginal                    Satisfactory               Good
   (2) Capability /   Construction              Inappropriate           Inappropriate           Inappropriate               Occasionally             Project fully meets          Innovative and        Photographic evidence.
Experience            techniques used are       construction            construction            construction                inappropriate            specification                advanced construction
(a) Contractor's Team appropriate for project   techniques used         techniques used on      techniques often            construction             requirements.                techniques used to
                                                most of the time        many occasions with     used with minimal           techniques used with                                  deliver a superior
                                                leading to substantial  significant impact on   impact on project. For      minimal impact on        Adequate equipment           product, modern
                                                breach of               the project.        -   example, activity takes     overall project.         and resources.               equipment and highly
                                                contract/termination.   Excessive supervision   a lot longer than it        - Supervision required                                skilled resources.
                                                                        required. -             needed to, but not on       was in line with         Effective use of
                                                Performance             Contractor seeks        critical path, so did not   expectations for this    available equipment          Backup resources to
                                                necessitates inordinate guidance by Super on    delay project               type of project.         and resources.               cover for illness / injury.
                                                extent of supervision   frequent occasions      completion.                                          Supervision required         Supervision required
                                                and/or surveillance.                            Several minor               Minor and infrequent     was slightly less than       was minimal compared
                                                                                                disruptions / incidents     issues relating to       expected.                    to industry norms.
                                                Failure to have key                             relating to equipment       equipment and            Average down time            Proactive maintenance
                                                personnel with                                  or resources.               resources.               due to illness / injury or   of equipment with better
                                                specified qualifications                        Supervision required                                 equipment breakdowns.        than average down time.
                                                / experience on site at                         was slightly more than
                                                appropriate times.                              what would have been
                                                                                                expected for this type
                                                                                                of contract




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Page 9
                                                                                                          Criteria for Assessment
   Assessment             Assessment                                                                                                                                                                    Some Examples of Evidence
   Categories               Criteria            Score 0                 Score 1                  Score 2                      Score 3                 Score 4                                                 Requirements
                                                                                                                                                                             Score 5      Excellent
                                               Unsatisfactory                Poor                   Marginal                  Satisfactory                Good
   (2) Capability /    Management and       Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of      Contractual               Contractual               All Contractual          Subcontractor supplier     Copies of minutes of site meetings,
Experience             payment of           the issues listed below:                            requirements wrt          requirements wrt          requirements wrt         payment terms are back-    related correspondence.
 (a) Contractor's Team Subcontractors and   • Several major issues involving management of      payment of                payment of                payment of               to-back with head          Excessive delays/ poor quality of
                       suppliers.           subcontractors with significant impact on project   subcontractors            subcontractors            subcontractors           contract and               workmanship by subbies.
                                            • Failure to apply management system and            suppliers and workers     suppliers and             suppliers almost         subcontractors suppliers   Program revisions required as a
                                            project quality plan provisions to activities of    are not met regularly.    workers are               always met.              always paid on time.       result of delays by subbies.
                                            subcontractors and suppliers.                                                 generally met.
                                            • Absence or poor use of purchasing planning        Frequent minor                                      Good management          Demonstrated effective
                                            techniques and associated processes and             issues or single major    Occasional minor          and coordination of      working relationships
                                            controls.                                           issue involving           issues involving          subcontractors.          with all subcontractors
                                            • Inadequate and/or consistently late               management of             management of                                      with favourable
                                            submissions for approval of subcontractors or       subcontractors with       subcontractors with       Contractor's Statutory   feedback received from
                                            nominated suppliers.                                moderate impact on        minimal overall impact    Declaration nearly       subcontractors.
                                            • Significant disruption to the program due to      project.                  on project.               always submitted with
                                            unsatisfactory performance by subcontractors                                                            progress claims         Excellent management
                                            and suppliers.                                      Contractor's Statutory
                                                                                                                    Contractor's Statutory                                  and coordination of
                                            • Consistent failure of subcontractors and          Declaration often not
                                                                                                                    Declaration sometimes           No BCIPA adjudication subcontractors.
                                            suppliers to meet contractual requirements.         submitted with      not submitted with              decisions decisions
                                                                                                progress claims.    progress claims and             substantially in favour Excellent control of the
                                                                                                                    requires chasing up by          of the subcontractor    performance and work
                                                                                                Poor management and superintendent.                 (relating to            processes of
                                                                                                control of                                          subcontractor payment subcontractors.
                                                                                                subcontractors.     No more than one                disputes).
                                                                                                                          BCIPA adjudication                                No BCIPA referred to
                                                                                                Poor management of        decision substantially                            adjudication .
                                                                                                subcontractor's           in favour of the
                                                                                                performance               subcontractor (relating
                                                                                                                          to subcontractor
                                                                                                 More than one BCIPA      payment disputes)
                                                                                                adjudication decision     .
                                                                                                substantially in favour
                                                                                                of the subcontractor
                                                                                                (relating to
                                                                                                subcontractor payment
                                                                                                disputes)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Page 10
                                                                                                                    Criteria for Assessment
    Assessment              Assessment                                                                                                                                                                        Some Examples of Evidence
    Categories                Criteria               Score 0                   Score 1                     Score 2                     Score 3               Score 4                                                Requirements
                                                                                                                                                                                   Score 5       Excellent
                                                    Unsatisfactory                  Poor                      Marginal                 Satisfactory              Good
   (2) Capability /    Effective project         Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of           Submission of           Submission of            Contractual             Proactive approach to      Industrial disputes.
Experience             management skills         the issues listed below:                                 construction program    construction program     requirements fully      project management.        Claims settled well below original
 (a) Contractor's Team (overall management       • Submission of construction program and                 and updates often not   and updates mostly in    met.                    Issues raised well in      claimed amount
                       of project and delivery   updates frequently not in accordance with the            in accordance with      accordance with the                              advance of required        Excessive staff turnover/inadequate
                       on time)                  contract and/or frequently not followed by               the contract or often   contract and followed     Submission of          program date.              staff abilities / incompatible staff
                                                 contractor significantly impacting on the project        not followed by the     by the contractor most    construction program                              composition.
                                                 delivery. Program not submitted. Monthly                 contractor.             of the time.              and updates in         Effective development        Correspondence relating to
                                                 rolling programs not submitted                                                                             accordance with        and implementation of      program delays.
                                                 • Several critical activities delayed due to poor        A large number of non- A small number of non- contract and followed      construction program.
                                                 project management causing the project to be             critical activities and/or critical activities    by contractor.
                                                 significantly delayed overall.                           a small number of          delayed as a result of                        Forward thinking
                                                 • Substantial breach of contract due to time             critical activities        poor project           Project delivered on   approach - early
                                                 delays / lack of progress resulting in the issue of      delayed as a result of     management,            time and by the Date   identification of issues
                                                 a "Show Cause" notice under the General                  poor project               however, contract      For Practical          potentially impacting
                                                 Conditions of Contract.                                  management causing delivered on time              Completion.            program and
                                                 • Termination of the contract for failing to             the project to be          overall.                                      contingencies /
                                                 proceed with due expedition and without delay.           delayed overall.                                                         mitigation strategies in
                                                 • Frequent staff turnover, especially in key                                        Contractor generally                          place.
                                                 personnel and ineffective project organisation           Staff generally poorly     not proactive or
                                                 structure.                                               managed and staff          forward thinking with                         Demonstrated flexibility
                                                 • Inadequate provision of personnel with                 turnover is high.          respect to                                    in adapting construction
                                                 required expertise, experience and                                                  programming issues or                         program to changing
                                                 qualifications, and/or definition of responsibilities.                              resource requirements.                        needs as project
                                                                                                                                                                                   evolves.
                                                                                                                                  Turnover of staff not
                                                                                                                                  always well managed                              Staff managed very well
                                                                                                                                  but no significant                               and staff turnover very
                                                                                                                                  impacts on project.                              low.

                                                                                                                                                                                   Superior allocation of
                                                                                                                                                                                   resources to deliver
                                                                                                                                                                                   project ahead of time at
                                                                                                                                                                                   no additional cost to
                                                                                                                                                                                   principal.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Page 11
Table G2 –
Criteria for
Assessment of
Performance
                                                                                                             Criteria for Assessment
    Assessment             Assessment                                                                                                                                                                    Some Further Examples of
    Categories               Criteria        Score 0                    Score 1                      Score 2                    Score 3                 Score 4                Score 5                    Evidence Requirements
                                               Unsatisfactory                 Poor                     Marginal                  Satisfactory                 Good                    Excellent
   (2) Capability /    Knowledge and         Repeated serious           Frequent and re-           Several minor issues      Minor issues               Sound knowledge of     Excellent knowledge
Experience             understanding of      issues involving           occurring minor            involving incorrect       associated with            contract documents     and understanding of
  (b) Superintendent   contract document /   incorrect interpretation   issues involving           interpretation of         misunderstanding or        and specifications.    contract documents
        Team           specifications        of contract documents      incorrect interpretation   contract documents /      incorrect interpretation   Superintendent         and specifications.
                                             / specifications by the    of contract documents      specifications.           of contract documents      understands role as
                                             superintendent.            / specifications.          Not consistently          / specifications.          independent verifier   Awareness of
                                                                                                   adopting the role of                                                        limitations of standard
                                             “Show Cause” notice        Infrequent serious         independent verifier;     Not significantly          All contractual        contract
                                             issued by the              issues involving           favouring one party or    impacting on success       obligations met.       documentation and
                                             Contractor under the       incorrect interpretation   the other.                of project.                                       specifications and
                                             General Conditions of      of contract documents      Interpretations causing                                                     preparedness to work
                                             Contract.                  / specifications due to    frustration to                                                              with contractor to
                                                                        failure of the             Contractor/Principal.                                                       overcome such
                                             Breach of contract by      superintendent to fully                                                                                limitations minimising
                                             superintendent             understand the                                                                                         the impact to the
                                             resulting in show          requirements of the                                                                                    principal.
                                             cause / termination.       contract documents or
                                                                        specifications.                                                                                        Early identification of
                                                                                                                                                                               any inconsistencies or
                                                                                                                                                                               errors in
                                                                                                                                                                               documentation.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Page 12
                                                                                                           Criteria for Assessment
   Assessment              Assessment                                                                                                                                                                    Some Further Examples of
   Categories                Criteria         Score 0                  Score 1                      Score 2                   Score 3                Score 4                  Score 5                     Evidence Requirements
                                                Unsatisfactory               Poor                     Marginal                 Satisfactory                Good                      Excellent
   (2) Capability /     Responsive decision   Consistently failing     Contractual obligations   Contractual obligations    Contractual obligations Contractual obligations   Contractual obligations Copies of dated correspondence
Experience              making / claims       to meet significant      not met within the        often not met within       generally met within    met by the prescribed     met ahead of the        confirming time obligations not met.
 (b) Superintendent /   assessment and        contractual obligation   prescribed time limits    the prescribed time        the prescribed time     time limit.               prescribed timeframe.
       Principal's      meeting contractual   within the prescribed    on many occasions         limits but only having a   limit.
Representative's Team   time obligations      timeframe having a       and having a moderate     small impact on the                                Issuing of notices etc    Issuing of notices etc
                                              significant impact on    impact on the project.    project.                   Some notices / claims by the prescribed time.     ahead of the
                                              the delivery of the      Confusion between                                    issued late but minimal                           prescribed time.
                                              project.                 roles as independent                                 impact on contract.
                                                                       verifier and agent of                                                                                  Early warning of
                                                                       Principal.                                                                                             design errors and
                                                                                                                                                                              omissions.

                                                                                                                                                                              Early warning of
                                                                                                                                                                              possible principal
                                                                                                                                                                              ordered variations.

                                                                                                                                                                              Early warning of scope
                                                                                                                                                                              changes.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Page 13
                                                                                                            Criteria for Assessment
   Assessment             Assessment                                                                                                                                                                      Some Further Examples of
   Categories               Criteria          Score 0                   Score 1                      Score 2                   Score 3                Score 4                  Score 5                     Evidence Requirements
                                                Unsatisfactory                Poor                     Marginal                 Satisfactory                Good                      Excellent
   (2) Capability /   Application of          Lack of engineering      Application of poor        Application of fair        Application of good     Sound knowledge of        Excellent knowledge
Experience            engineering judgement   judgement              - engineering judgement      engineering judgement      engineering judgement   engineering principles,   of engineering
 (b) Superintendent /                                                  and rarely considers       and sometimes              and often considers     construction              principles, construction
        Principal's                           Never considers merits merits of alternative        considers merits of        merits of alternative   techniques, plant and     techniques, plant and
Representative's Team                         of alternative           construction methods.      alternative construction   construction methods.   equipment capabilities    equipment capabilities
                                              construction methods. -                             methods.                                           and production rates      and production rates.
                                               Insistence on contract - Decisions not based       - Generally showed         - Good understanding and demonstrated
                                              requirements when        on sound construction      lack of timely             of Project requirements ability to apply this     Always considers
                                              clearly inappropriate.   practice leading to re-    responsiveness to                                  knowledge in making       merits of alternative
                                                                       work/ premature failure    design difficulties.                               project related           construction methods.
                                                                       etc                        - Refers many matters                              decisions
                                                                       - Lack of experience in    to others                                          Good understanding of     Superintendent always
                                                                       construction resulted in   (Designer/Principal) for                           costing variations.       knows when it is
                                                                       poor decisions.            decision                                                                     appropriate to seek
                                                                                                                                                                               assistance from
                                                                                                                                                                               technical specialists /
                                                                                                                                                                               experts.

                                                                                                                                                                               Prompt and
                                                                                                                                                                               considered decision
                                                                                                                                                                               making backed by
                                                                                                                                                                               sound technical
                                                                                                                                                                               argument and logic.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Page 14
                                                                                                    Criteria for Assessment
   Assessment            Assessment                                                                                                                                                            Some Further Examples of
   Categories              Criteria    Score 0                   Score 1                     Score 2                  Score 3                Score 4                   Score 5                  Evidence Requirements
                                         Unsatisfactory                Poor                    Marginal                Satisfactory                Good                       Excellent
   (2) Capability /   Demonstrated     Not competent to         Always acts honestly       Always acts honestly    More reactive then      Superintendent              Superintendent
Experience            fairness and     perform duties.          but decisions              but a number of         proactive.              obligations under the       administers contract
 (b) Superintendent / reasonableness                            frequently                 decisions considered                            contract are fully met      proactively not
        Principal's                    Contractual obligations considered to be            to be unfair by the     Obligations under       under the General           reactively.
Representative's Team                  frequently not met.      unfair on minor issues     contractor on minor     contract generally met. Conditions of Contract.
                                                                and occasionally on        issues.                                                                     Always acts honestly
                                       Does not act honestly major issues.                                         Always acts honestly     Superintendent acts        and fairly.
                                       and/or frequently does                              Often does not act      and mostly fair.         honestly and fairly.
                                       not act fairly.          Frequently does not        within a reasonable                                                         Always acts within a
                                                                act within a reasonable    timeframe but mostly     Mostly acts within a   Superintendent acts         reasonable time if no
                                       Frequently does not      time on minor issues       on minor issues.         reasonable time frame. within the specified or     time is prescribed in
                                       act within a reasonable and occasionally on                                                         reasonable time             the contract.
                                       time on significant      major issues.              Often does not arrive    Mostly arrives at a    frames.
                                       issues.                                             at a reasonable          reasonable measure or                              Always arrives at a
                                                                Frequently does not        measure or value of      value of work,         Superintendent arrives      reasonable measure or
                                       Frequently does not      arrive at a reasonable     work, quantities or time quantities or time.    at a reasonable             value of work,
                                       arrive at a reasonable measure or value of          but mostly on minor                             measure or value of         quantities or time.
                                       measure or value of      work, quantities or time   issues or work items.                           work, quantities or time.
                                       work, quantities or time on minor issues or                                                                                     Always considers the
                                       on significant issues or work items and                                                                                         implications of any
                                       work items.              occasionally on major                                                                                  decision on both the
                                                                issues or work items.                                                                                  contractor and the
                                                                                                                                                                       principal and applies
                                                                Does not make                                                                                          extensive knowledge
                                                                decisions                                                                                              of engineering
                                                                                                                                                                       principles and the
                                                                                                                                                                       contract document in
                                                                                                                                                                       making equitable
                                                                                                                                                                       decisions.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Page 15
Table G2 –
Criteria for
Assessment of
Performance
                                                                                                        Criteria for Assessment
  Assessment            Assessment                                                                                                                                                                   Some Examples of Evidence
  Categories              Criteria         Score 0                   Score 1                    Score 2                  Score 3               Score 4                   Score 5                           Requirements
                                             Unsatisfactory                Poor                   Marginal                Satisfactory               Good                       Excellent
 (3) Relationships   Open and honest       Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of     Open and honest         Open and honest          Open and honest      Open and honest
                     communications        the issues listed below:                           communication           communication            communication almost communication always
                                           • Open and honest communication never /            occasionally            generally displayed.     always displayed.    displayed.
                                           rarely displayed.                                  displayed.            - Average working
                                           • Unsatisfactory relationships between             Contractual position    relationship but         Good working              Complete level of trust.
                                           contractor and superintendent, Principal and/or    always relied upon to   contractual positions    relationships.
                                           their representative.                              determine outcomes      often relied upon to                               Issues freely
                                           • Complete breakdown in communications                                     determine outcomes.      Good level of             discussed.
                                           significantly impacting upon the time, cost or                                                      commitment to project
                                           quality of the project.                                                                             by all parties.            Mistakes openly and
                                                                                                                                                                         promptly admitted and
                                                                                                                                                                         sound engineering
                                                                                                                                                                         solutions determined
                                                                                                                                                                         collaboratively



 (3) Relationships   Working together to   Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of     Co-operative and        Parties generally        Commitment to             High level of
                     achieve the best      the issues listed below:                           willing attitude        committed to project.    project by all parties.   commitment to
                     project outcomes      • Generally uncooperative and unwilling attitude   frequently not                                                             project by all parties.
                                           displayed by the parties most of the time.         displayed by the        Co-operative and         Partnering
                                           • Unpleasant work environment.                     parties but mainly on   willing attitude often   arrangements or           Parties working
                                           • Major issues often not resolved quickly with     minor issues.           displayed by the         principles used on        together proactively to
                                           significant impact on project.                                             parties.                 project and almost        achieve "best for
                                           • Stubborn and inflexible attitudes frequently     Minor issues frequently                          always effective.         project" outcomes.
                                           displayed by both parties.                         not resolved quickly    Issues often resolved
                                                                                              with moderate impact quickly with minor          Co-operative and          Partnering
                                                                                              on project.             impact on project.       willing attitude almost   arrangements used
                                                                                                                                               always displayed by all   effectively for the
                                                                                                                                               parties.                  entire project.

                                                                                                                                               Issues almost always      Co-operative and
                                                                                                                                               resolved quickly          willing attitude always
                                                                                                                                               without any significant   displayed by all parties.
                                                                                                                                               impact on project.
                                                                                                                                                                         Issues quickly resolved
                                                                                                                                                                         without any major
                                                                                                                                                                         impact on project.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Page 16
                                                                                                       Criteria for Assessment
 Assessment             Assessment                                                                                                                                                                  Some Examples of Evidence
 Categories               Criteria       Score 0                   Score 1                      Score 2                  Score 3               Score 4                  Score 5                           Requirements
                                           Unsatisfactory                Poor                     Marginal                Satisfactory               Good                      Excellent
(3) Relationships   Relationships with   Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of      Stakeholders often        Adequate stakeholder Contractual and             All stakeholders kept      Letters from stakeholders
                    stakeholders         the issues listed below:                            not kept informed of      management /            prequalification         fully informed of          expressing satisfaction or
                                         • Stakeholders rarely kept informed of issues in    minor issues and          interaction but         obligations fully met.   relevant project related
                                         general and often not informed of critical or       occasionally not          generally not proactive                          matters at all times.
                                                                                                                                                                                                   dissatisfaction.
                                         significant issues.                                 informed of critical or                           Stakeholders almost                                 Adverse media reports where
                                         • Significant issues involving stakeholders often   significant issues.                               always kept informed     Advance notice or          the contractor had specific
                                         not well managed in accordance with the                                                               of relevant project      early warning of           responsibilities under the
                                         contract or prequalification system                 Minor issues involving                            related matters.         significant issues
                                                                                                                                                                                                   contract to manage these
                                         requirements.                                       stakeholders frequently                                                    always given.
                                         • Frequent negative feedback from                   not well managed in                               Relevant notices given
                                                                                                                                                                                                   particular
                                         stakeholders.                                       accordance with the                               to stakeholders in     Stakeholder input            stakeholders.(Normally the
                                         • Adverse media coverage or political               contract or                                       accordance with the    always fully considered.     Principal/Superintendent
                                         embarrassment resulting from poor                   prequalification system                           contract.                                           maintains responsibility for
                                         management of stakeholder relationships by          requirements.                                                            Positive feedback from
                                                                                                                                                                                                   liaison with the media).
                                         contractor.                                                                                           Stakeholder input      stakeholders.
                                                                                             Some negative                                     almost always fully
                                                                                             feedback from                                     considered.            Critical issues /
                                                                                             stakeholders.                                                            decisions always
                                                                                                                                               Generally positive     successfully negotiated
                                                                                             Critical issues /                                 feedback from          with stakeholders.
                                                                                             decisions occasionally                            stakeholders.
                                                                                             poorly negotiated with
                                                                                             stakeholders.                                     Critical issues /
                                                                                                                                               decisions nearly
                                                                                                                                               always successfully
                                                                                                                                               negotiated with
                                                                                                                                               stakeholders.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Page 17
Table G2 –
Criteria for
Assessment of
Performance
                                                                                                          Criteria for Assessment
   Assessment            Assessment                                                                                                                                                                   Some Examples of Evidence
   Categories              Criteria        Score 0                      Score 1                     Score 2                   Score 3                 Score 4                  Score 5                      Requirements
                                              Unsatisfactory                 Poor                    Marginal                 Satisfactory                Good                      Excellent
(4) Claims / Disputes Dispute occurrence   Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of         Several minor disputes Several minor              No contractual             No contractual
                      and magnitude        the issues listed below:                               and/or occasional         disputes or disputed    disputes or small          disputes or those
                      (includes disputed                                                          significant disputes or claims.                   number of contractual      disputes which were
                      claims)              - Large number of frivolous claims                     disputed claims.                                  disputes typically minor   lodged were resolved
                                           • Large number of disputes or disputed claims.                                   Claims / disputes       in nature and resolved     totally in favour of
                                           • Disputes significantly impacted upon the             Disputes or disputed      require an extended     substantially in favour    contractor.
                                           delivery of the project (eg. time / cost               claims require            time to resolve.        of contractor.
                                           performance).                                          extended time and cost
                                           • Arbitration or litigation decisions substantially in to resolve.                Claims/disputes were   Disputes / disputed
                                           favour of the principal.                                                         resolved relatively     claims always resolved
                                                                                                  Arbitration or litigation equally.                or settlement
                                                                                                  needed to resolve                                 negotiated promptly
                                                                                                  disputes - could not be                           with minimal impact on
                                                                                                  resolved by                                       the delivery of the
                                                                                                  superintendent and/or                             project.
                                                                                                  principal.
                                                                                                                                                    Disputes / disputed
                                                                                               Resolution of                                        claims always resolved
                                                                                               claims/disputes in                                   or settlement
                                                                                               favour of principal.                                 negotiated within the
                                                                                                                                                    contract period.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Page 18
                                                                                                            Criteria for Assessment
   Assessment             Assessment                                                                                                                                                                         Some Examples of Evidence
   Categories               Criteria         Score 0                     Score 1                       Score 2                  Score 3                  Score 4                  Score 5                          Requirements
                                                Unsatisfactory                Poor                      Marginal                Satisfactory                 Good                      Excellent
(4) Claims / Disputes Adequate supporting    Variance between 0 and 1 is by the severity of       Superintendent /          Documentation              Good documentation         Excellent
                      documentation          the issues listed below:                             principal's               submitted by               submitted by               documentation always
                      provided for           • Documentation submitted by contractor in           representative            contractor in support of   contractor in support of   submitted by
                      assessment of claims   support of claims is frequently of a poor            frequently has to         claims is generally        claims.                    contractor in support of
                                             standard (eg lacking in specificity and detail;      "chase up" minor          adequate.                                             claims.
                                             unclear references to relevant sections of claim).   additional supporting                                Documentation always
                                             • Contains largely irrelevant information.           information or            Occasionally,              attached to claim with     Documentation always
                                                                                                  occasionally has to       superintendent /           clear references to        clear, concise and set
                                             Claims never discussed prior to submission           request significant       principal's                relevant sections of       out in a logical fashion
                                                                                                  additional information.   representative needs       claim.                     with very clear
                                                                                                                            to "chase up" minor                                   references to relevant
                                                                                                  Usually supporting        additional supporting      Claims generally           parts of claim.
                                                                                                  documentation is of an    information.               discussed and agreed
                                                                                                  adequate standard                                    prior to submission        Claims always
                                                                                                  when forthcoming.         Claims generally                                      discussed and agreed
                                                                                                                            discussed prior to                                    prior to submission
                                                                                                  Claims seldom             submission but not
                                                                                                  discussed prior to        always submitted as
                                                                                                  submission                agreed




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Form C6876
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Version 9/06
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Page 19

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Contract Termination Letters Examples document sample