MnDOT – ACEC/MN Annual Conference March 5, 2013 Amber Blanchard, MnDOT Glenn Schreiner, ACEC/MN.
18
MnDOT – ACEC/MN Annual Conference March 5, 2013 Amber Blanchard, MnDOT Glenn Schreiner, ACEC/MN
-
Upload
mackenzie-barnett -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
1
Transcript of MnDOT – ACEC/MN Annual Conference March 5, 2013 Amber Blanchard, MnDOT Glenn Schreiner, ACEC/MN.
MnDOT – ACEC/MN Annual ConferenceMarch 5, 2013
Amber Blanchard, MnDOTGlenn Schreiner, ACEC/MN
How many of you like
MnDOT’s current P/T
contract performance evaluation?
How many of you don’t like
MnDOT’s current P/T
contract performance evaluation?
How many of you know what happens to the evaluations?
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)
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
◦ 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 beginsAnd Consultant will also be reviewing MnDOT Performance
Rating
Consultant A
MnDOT B
Contract A+B
Project Management Project Development Deliverables PM (Key Personnel)
1 – Low (Does not meet expectations)3 – Meets Expectations5 – High (Exceeds Expectations)
Criteria Low Meets Expectations
High
Project Knowledge 1 3 5
Communication 1 3 5
Administration 1 3 5
Issue Resolution 1 3 5
Leadership 1 3 5
Budget 1 3 5
Project Management
1.0 3.0 5.0
Criteria Low Meet Expectations
High
Project Management
1.0 3.0 5.0
Project Development
1.0 3.0 5.0
Deliverables 1.0 3.0 5.0
PM (Key Personnel)
1.0 3.0 5.0
Consultant Rating 4.0 12.0 20.0
Deliverables Project Knowledge Communication Administration Issue Resolution Leadership Flexibility
Criteria Low Meets Expectations
High
Deliverables 1 3 5
Project Knowledge 1 3 5
Communication 1 3 5
Project Administration
1 3 5
Issue Resolution 1 3 5
Leadership 1 3 5
Flexibility 1 3 5
MnDOT Rating 1.0 3.0 5.0
Criteria Low Meets Expectations
High
Consultant Rating 4.0 12.0 20.0
MnDOT Rating 1.0 3.0 5.0
Contract Rating 5.0 15.0 25.0
Ratings of 10 or less require Improvement Plans
Non compliance with improvement plan could affect prequalification for a work type.
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
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)
