Select List of Approved Contractors - Performance Monitoring Form

Please complete the form below for each contractor working on a project, using the scoring criteria below. Please leave blank if no comment / not applicable.

Overall Project Percentage

Progress in Making Good
Quality of Workmanship

Contractor Performance
Collaborative Approach
Financial Management

Customer Satisfaction
Contractor Design (If

Total Project Score

Time Management

Health and Safety

Sub-
contractors

Applicable)
Defects
Management of
Project Contractor

Example Example 5 4 3 3 4 2 3 2 2 2 30 60%

0 0%

Project Contractor Comments / justification for low scoring

Form completed by: Quarter: Date:

Performance Measure Definition Scoring Criteria

5 Excellent; significant savings in time realised by contractor

4 Good; proactive approach, potential delays minimised by contractor

How well did the contractor plan
and progress the works? Was the 3 Average; delays neither caused nor minimised by contractor
Time Management contractor proactive in resolving
or minimising programme issues
or delays?
 How well did the contractor plan
and progress the works? Was the
Time Management contractor proactive in resolving
or minimising programme issues 2 Below Average; minor programme issues/delays possibly caused by contractor
or delays?
1 Poor; programme issues/delays caused or exacerbated by contractor

0 Unacceptable; major programme issues/delays caused by contractor

5 Excellent; contractor was proactive, identified major cost savings through innovation

4 Good; contractor was proactive in managing all cost issues

How well did the contractor
manage costs? Was cost
reporting timely and accurate? 3 Average; contractor was fairly proactive in managing cost issues
Financial Management Was change agreed
expeditiously? Was there prudent 2 Below Average; cost management was neither proactive nor reactive
management of the provisional
sums and/or risk?
1 Poor; cost management was reactive and at times antagonistic

0 Unacceptable; cost management was antagonistic resulting in major cost issues

5 Excellent; H&S management was exemplary with no issues or concerns throughout the project

How well did the contractor 4 Good; only very minor issues or concerns
manage health and safety?
Consider quality of H&S 3 Average; few minor incidents not caused by contractor
documentation, management of
Health and Safety H&S on site, compliance with
H&S plan, accidents and 2 Below Average; few minor incidents due to poor site management
incidents, site safety checks and
audits. 1 Poor; reportable incident resulting in contractor being placed on additional monitoring

0 Unacceptable; contractor suspended following major incident

Excellent; sub-contractors involved early, mostly through established supply chains. Excellent co-
5
ordination and management.

4 Good; sub-contractors involved at right time; well co-ordinated/managed

Were sub-contractors appointed
Management of at the right time, did the contractor 3 Average; late appointments and/or lack of co-ordination/management
manage performance and quality
Sub-contractors of work and co-ordinate different
2 Below Average; some issues due to late appointments and/or lack of co-ordination/management
sub-contractors?

1 Poor; several issues due to late appointments and lack of co-ordination/management

0 Unacceptable; major issue(s) due to late appointments and/or lack of co-ordination/management

 5 Excellent; workmanship, 'right first time'

4 Good; workmanship, minor snagging required

Did the contractor achieve a high 3 Average; workmanship, but some isolated areas requiring re-work
quality of work first time or was a
Quality of Workmanship need for re-work prompted by
other parties? 2 Below Average; workmanship, but several minor issues requiring re-work

1 Poor; workmanship, some significant issues requiring re-work

0 Unacceptable; workmanship, major re-work required.

5 Excellent; all defects resolved within 1 week of practical completion

4 Good; all defects resolved within 1 month of practical completion

How quickly did the contractor 3 Average; all defects resolved within 3 months of practical completion
Progress in Making resolve defects after practical
Good Defects completion? 2 Below Average: majority of defects resolved within 3 months of practical completion

1 Poor; some defects outstanding after 3 months; contractor reluctant to attend site

0 Unacceptable; major defects outstanding after 3 months; contractor unwilling to resolve

5 Excellent; contractor took the lead in collaborative team working

Did the contractor take on their 4 Good; contractor was a positive, proactive member of the team
responsibilities as a team player
enthusiastically? Were they an 3 Average; contractor worked well with the team but did not add value
active participant in the decision
Collaborative Approach making or issue resolution
processes throughout the project, 2 Below Average; contractual approach
or did they prefer to wait to be
instructed? 1 Poor; required instruction in collaborative team working

0 Unacceptable; adversarial approach resulting in ongoing dispute or claim

5 Excellent; contractor performance was exemplary in all these areas

4 Good; contractor performance was good in all these areas

Consider the contractor's 3 Average; contractor performance was average in all these areas
communication, planning and
Contractor Performance organisation; site management;
consideration for other site users.
 Consider the contractor's
communication, planning and
Contractor Performance organisation; site management;
consideration for other site users. 2 Below Average; issues/room for improvement in some areas

1 Poor; several issues due to poor performance in one or more of these areas

0 Unacceptable; major issue(s) due to poor performance in one or more of these areas

5 Excellent; quality, contractor was proactive and design provided well in advance of construction
How well did the contractor fulfil
their responsibilities, including the 4 Good; quality, design provided in accordance with agreed programme
quality and timeliness of
information?
3 Average; quality, design provided in sufficient time to avoid delay to construction
Contractor Design For
design and build projects - how 2 Below Average; quality, design provided on time but putting pressure on programme
well did the contractor manage
and co-ordinate the design 1 Poor; quality, design provided late putting pressure on programme
contractors? How good was the
quality of the design information? Unacceptable; quality, design information only provided when pressure applied by other parties
0
with subsequent delays to programme

Excellent; reasonable provision has been made for people to gain access to and use the
5
building/building extension and its facilities. Also excellent understanding of KCC's requirements.
Confirmation that reasonable
provision has been made for 4 Good; performance good throughout project with regards to inclusive design
people to (a) gain access to; and
(b) use the building / building
Inclusive Access & extension and its facilities. 3 Average; Inclusive design provided throughout each stage of project
Corporate Standards Any reasons for departing from
KCC's Technical Standards, 2 Below Average; several minor issues resulting in delays and further advice to be given
Approved Document M or
BS8300 have been fully justified 1 Poor; lack of understanding leading to management issues surrounding inclusive design
in the Access Statement.
0 Unacceptable; no consideration of inclusive design

5 Excellent

4 Good

3 Average
Customer Satisfaction Customer satisfaction.
2 Below Average

1 Poor

0 Unacceptable