Financial Project Number:	Local Agency Name:

Reviewer:	District:

Local Agency Project Evaluation Form Overview

The Department assesses what aspects of the Local Agency’s (LA’s) efforts are compliant, where compliance is less than satisfactory, and whether the LAP certification type needs to change or be removed based on risk to the Department or the program. The evaluations inform project and LA monitoring plans, the LA’s risk assessment, and the certification review process. The District LP Administrator completes the evaluation based on input from the Department’s project managers. Once the District LP Administrator completes the evaluation, the evaluation is reviewed and signed by the LA’s responsible charge and the District LP Administrator. Completed performance evaluation forms are provided to the LA’s responsible charge as part of the project closeout process. The Department provides the evaluation to the LA as soon as practicable and no more than 30 days after project close out.

LP Manual, 7.6 Performance Evaluation Ratings

Each performance evaluation will result in one of three ratings:

Unsatisfactory Performance means the LA failed to develop the project in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations, standards and procedures, required excessive Department involvement/oversight, or required corrective actions by the Department to complete the project. The LA lacks compliance with the Local Programs Manual (LPM) (FDOT Topic No. 525-010-300).

Satisfactory Performance means the LA developed the project in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations, standards and procedures, with minimal Department involvement/oversight. The LA is substantially compliant with the LPM.

Above Satisfactory Performance means the LA developed the project in accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations, standards and procedures, and the Department did not have to exceed the minimum oversight and monitoring requirements identified for the project. The LA is compliant with the LPM and/or demonstrates a high level of understanding of the contents of the LPM.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROCUREMENT: This section covers the Planning, Design and CEI phases where a consultant is hired to perform the services on behalf of the LA. A project may have multiple evaluations for each consultant procurement action. If Planning, Design, and/or CEI are being performed in-house, this section would NOT apply to that particular phase.

The LA’s solicitation/RFP met the LAP Professional Services Checklist requirements, the LPM, and the LA received concurrence from the Department prior to advertisement.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement or reviews by the Department and/or required corrective actions.
2	The LA followed procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department.
3	The LA followed procedures and received Department concurrence with one review.
The LA’s staff were responsive to Department requests for project information.
Select Rating	1	The LA’s staff were difficult to contact and caused project delays due to lack of communication or non-responsiveness to requests for information.
2	The LA’s staff responded to requests for information but required Department staff to increase oversight in order to ensure consistent communication and responsiveness during the project.
3	The LA’s staff responded to requests for information and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
The LA provided addenda for the Department’s concurrence prior to issuance.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures, required excessive involvement by the Department and/or corrective actions.
2	The LA followed procedures with minimal prompting by the Department.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department provided concurrence after performing the minimum project oversight required.
The LA received less than three responses to their solicitation for services and followed the LPM Ch. 14 procedures in order to move forward.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow LPM procedures, required excessive involvement by the Department and/or corrective actions.
2	The LA followed LPM procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department.
3	The LA followed LPM procedures, and the Department provided concurrence after performing the minimum project oversight required.
The LA evaluated and scored a minimum of three shortlisted firms and submitted supporting documentation of the evaluation process for review.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow LPM procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions
2	The LA followed LPM procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department.
3	The LA followed LPM procedures and the Department provided concurrence after performing the minimum project oversight required.

The LA received Department concurrence prior to negotiating with the most qualified firm. Negotiations process complied with the LPM, including application of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) to project costs.
Select Rating	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions
1	The LA did not follow LPM procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions.
2	The LA followed LPM procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department.
3	The LA followed LPM procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
The LA created the “Local Agency Contract” screen in GAP and the information exported to the Equal Opportunity Compliance (EOC) database allowing Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) reporting by the date consultant work began.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions.
2	The LA followed procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
Average:

DESIGN PHASE

The LA performed technical and plans development oversight of the design phase in accordance with Chapters 17 and 18 of the LPM. Phase submittals reviewed by the Department were in reasonable conformance with applicable standards and specifications.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions.
2	The LA followed procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
The LA’s staff were responsive to Department requests for project information.
Select Rating	1	The LA’s staff were difficult to contact and caused project delays due to lack of communication or non-responsiveness to requests for information.
2	The LA’s staff responded to requests for information but required Department staff to increase oversight in order to ensure consistent communication and responsiveness during the project.
3	The LA’s staff responded to requests for information and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
The LA submitted contract changes or scope changes for concurrence prior to implementation of the change including justification to support the changes in scope, cost, and/or schedule.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions.
2	The LA followed procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
The LA submitted quarterly and final invoices on time with supporting documentation (e.g. executed payrolls, time records, invoices, contracts or vouchers). Supporting documentation established that the deliverables were received and accepted in writing by the LA per the terms of the LAP Agreement.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions. LA did not submit invoices per the terms of the LAP Agreement.
2	The LA followed procedures and submitted invoices within the terms of the LAP Agreement with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required. The LA met or exceeded invoice submittal requirements per the terms of the LAP Agreement.
Average:

CONSTRUCTION ADVERTISEMENT AND AWARD

The LA’s staff were responsive to Department requests for project information.
Select Rating	1	The LA’s staff were difficult to contact and caused project delays due to lack of communication or non-responsiveness to requests for information.
2	The LA’s staff responded to requests for information, but required Department staff to increase oversight in order to ensure consistent communication and responsiveness during the project.
3	The LA’s staff responded to requests for information and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
The LA’s bid package met the LAP Construction Checklist requirements and the LA received concurrence from the Department prior to advertisement.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions.
2	The LA followed procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
The LA advertised the project within thirty (30) days of the date the Department issued the Construction Notice to Proceed (NTP) per the terms of the LAP Agreement. If the project was not able to meet the scheduled advertisement, the Department was notified.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement or reviews by the Department and/or required corrective actions. Delays were not communicated.
2	The LA followed procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department. Delays were communicated.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
The LA’s provided addenda for the Department’s concurrence prior to issuance.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or corrective actions.
2	The LA followed procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
The LA requested Department concurrence to award the contract to the lowest responsive responsible bidder and submitted supporting documentation the bid tabulations for review.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions.
2	The LA followed procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department. Delays were communicated.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
The LA created the “Local Agency Contract” screen in GAP and the information exported to the EOC database allowing DBE reporting by the date of the pre-construction meeting.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions.
2	The LA followed procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
Average:

CONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION

The LA communicated project information and staffing changes to the Department. The LA’s staff were responsive to Department requests for project information.
Select Rating	1	The LA’s staff were difficult to contact and caused project delays due to lack of communication or non-responsiveness to requests for information.
2	The LA’s staff responded to requests for information but required Department staff to increase oversight in order to ensure consistent communication and responsiveness during the project.
3	The LA’s staff responded to requests for information and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
The LA submitted contract changes or scope changes for concurrence prior to implementation of the change, including justification to support the changes in scope, cost, and/or schedule.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions.
2	The LA followed procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department. Delays were communicated.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
The LA submitted quarterly and final invoices on time with supporting documentation (e.g. executed payrolls, time records, invoices, contracts or vouchers). Supporting documentation established that the deliverables were received and accepted in writing by the LA per the terms of the LAP Agreement.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions. LA did not submit invoices per the terms of the LAP Agreement.
2	The LA followed procedures and submitted invoices within the terms of the LAP Agreement with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required. The LA met or exceeded invoice submittal requirements per the terms of the LAP Agreement.
Materials testing requirements were met per the terms of the construction specifications and a materials acceptance certification was included with the construction close out package.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions.
2	The LA followed procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department. Delays were communicated.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
The LA’s Resident Compliance Specialist performed construction contract compliance per the terms of the FDOT Contract Compliance Manual.
Select Rating	1	The LA did not follow procedures and required excessive involvement by the Department and/or required corrective actions.
2	The LA followed procedures with minimal prompting and/or reviews by the Department. Delays were communicated.
3	The LA followed procedures and the Department performed the minimum project oversight required.
Average:

GENERAL COMMENTS

Signature:	Signature:
Local Agency Responsible Charge	District Local Program Administrator
Date:	Date: