1 / 18

Performance Evaluation Improvements

Performance Evaluation Improvements. MnDOT – ACEC/MN Annual Conference March 5, 2013 Amber Blanchard, MnDOT Glenn Schreiner, ACEC/MN. How many of you like MnDOT’s current P/T contract performance evaluation?. Current Process.

melvyn
Download Presentation

Performance Evaluation Improvements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Performance Evaluation Improvements MnDOT – ACEC/MN Annual Conference March 5, 2013 Amber Blanchard, MnDOT Glenn Schreiner, ACEC/MN

  2. How many of you like MnDOT’s current P/T contract performance evaluation? Current Process

  3. How many of you don’t like MnDOT’s current P/T contract performance evaluation? Current Process

  4. How many of you know what happens to the evaluations? Current Process

  5. Performance Evaluation Improvements • Purpose:Improve the processes for evaluating project performance • Benefits: • Refined process that will give useful, consistent feedback • Offer chance to express concerns • Automated (ease of use)

  6. Performance Evaluation Improvements • White Paper • Goals: • Develop tools and processes for performance evaluations that benefit MnDOT and the Consultant Community • Transparency and Consistency should be included in the evaluation process • Include the Department of Administration’s evaluation requirements and incorporate into the process

  7. Performance Evaluation Improvements • Goals (Cont.) • Define expectations of both sides up front. Establish and define criteria by which the consultant and MnDOT will be measured/evaluated Key points: MnDOT and Consultant PM review performance metrics before the project begins And Consultant will also be reviewing MnDOT Performance

  8. Contract Rating includes sum of Consultant and MnDOT Ratings

  9. Consultant Rating Based on Four Categories • Project Management • Project Development • Deliverables • PM (Key Personnel)

  10. Each Category has Criteria scored from 1 to 5 1 – Low (Does not meet expectations) 3 – Meets Expectations 5 – High (Exceeds Expectations)

  11. Average Criteria Scores for Category Score

  12. Sum Category Scores for Consultant Rating

  13. MnDOT Rating Based on Seven Criteria • Deliverables • Project Knowledge • Communication • Administration • Issue Resolution • Leadership • Flexibility

  14. Average Criteria Scores for MnDOT Rating

  15. Sum Consultant and MnDOT Ratings for Contract Rating

  16. Consequences of Consistent Poor Ratings • Ratings of 10 or less require Improvement Plans • Non compliance with improvement plan could affect prequalification for a work type.

  17. Performance Evaluation Improvements • Draft process reviewed with both MnDOT and ACEC/MN • New evaluation software testing and training in June 2013 • Start using new evaluation software in July 2013

  18. Performance Evaluation Improvements • Purpose:Improve the processes for evaluating project performance • Benefits: • Refined process that will give useful, consistent feedback • Offer chance to express concerns • Automated (ease of use)

More Related