Skip to main content

Policies and Procedures

Finance & Administration

4-OP-B-11-G2 Construction Manager Evaluations

Responsible Division:

Finance and Administration

Approving Official:

Vice President for Finance and Administration

Effective Date:

January 1, 2014

Last Revision Date:

Unrevised at this time.




Sections 287.055(3)(d), 1001.74(28), F. S.


To establish procedures for the evaluation of construction managers while under contract for a project at Florida State University.


Construction managers (CM) are rated twice yearly while under contract at Florida State University (FSU). Ratings are maintained on file and these past performance ratings serve as a portion of the score on selections for future FSU projects.


Construction managers under contract to FSU are evaluated by the Facilities Design and Construction Office (FDC) on a semiannual basis, in January and July. In order to be rated, a firm must have been under contract for at least two (2) months of the rating period. A special evaluation may be conducted at any time when a significant change in performance occurs.


The project manager reviews each firm's performance and assigns points for each category. Individual category ratings are assigned as integers (whole numbers), using the following scale:

4 = Outstanding

3 = Above Satisfactory

2 = Satisfactory (meets expectations)

1 = Less than Satisfactory

Satisfactory, a score of 2, is the benchmark rating and is defined as the level of performance that meets contract requirements.


"FIRM" is the name of the firm being evaluated. If it is a joint venture, the name of one party to the joint venture is "FIRM" and the name of the other party to the joint venture is "Joint Venture". "Managing Office:" is the address of the evaluee's office providing the service, as stated in the CM agreement. "PROJECT MANAGER:" is the name of the primary contact with the firm for the project.

D. UNIVERSAL RATING CRITERIA (these categories are evaluated in every rating period):

1. Quality of Service

Documents the firm's ability to deliver services with a minimum of problems. Such problems may include mistakes in estimates or analysis, lack of thoroughness, lack of familiarity with codes, ignorance of contract document requirements and, in general, deficiencies resulting from the lack or misapplication of skills and/or project specific knowledge that the firm is expected to have or to obtain.

2. Quality and Timeliness of Reports and Records

Documents the firm's ability to meet approved schedules for provision of design review reports, monthly construction reports, meeting minutes, submittals of shop drawings, project schedules, etc.

3. Cooperation/Concern for FSU Interests

Documents the degree to which the firm cooperated with the owner and the extent of the firm's commitment to the protection and advancement of the interests of FSU.

4. Administration of Project Paperwork

Documents the accuracy, timeliness of submission and thoroughness of paperwork associated with the administration of the project. Such paperwork includes pay requests, contingency authorization forms, change orders, change order proposals and requests for information.


The rating categories described in Phases A through D will be completed as they are applicable. If a rating period spans more than one phase, complete the categories for each applicable phase and enter the number of months that occurred during the rating period. The Excel form will conduct the required pro-ration based on the months entered.

1. Phase A - Pre-Construction Phase

a. Value Engineering Effectiveness Documents the firm's ability to analyze the design documents and recommend creative approaches to make construction more efficient and reduce costs.

b. Ability to Work with Design Team Documents the firm's ability to work as part of a team with the architect/engineer to provide constructive reviews and be available to assist the architect/engineer during the design development.

c. Cost Estimating Effectiveness Documents the firm's ability to provide accurate cost estimates and suggest alternative approaches.

2. Phase B - Construction Services

a. Coordinating and Scheduling of the Work Documents the firm's ability to schedule work and coordinate trade contractors and suppliers to maintain the overall project schedule. Also evaluates firm's efforts in involving minority business enterprises in the project.

b. Workmanship/Product Quality Assurance Documents the firm's ability to provide quality construction in accordance with the plans and specifications. Does the firm insist on quality workmanship from the trade contractors and require the removal of non-complying work? Does the firm maintain a clean site? Does the firm comply with storm water runoff requirements?

c. Management of Contingency Funds Documents the firms ability to manage its contingency, spending only funds authorized by the University. Are funds spent on corrections or other costs which should have been avoided?

3. Phase C - Post Construction Services

a. Adequacy of As-Built Information How well did the firm maintain as-built information on a marked-up set of prints so that it could easily be translated to record drawings at the end of the project?

b. Preparation of Close-out Documents How complete and timely were the provision of close-out documents? (As-built information, releases of lien, warranty information, operating manuals, etc.)

c. Timely Accomplishment of Punch List Was the punch list completed within the time allowed by contract?

4. Phase D - Warranty Services

Responsiveness to Service Requests - Documents the firm's willingness and responsiveness to requests for service during the warranty period.


The Excel evaluation form automatically divides the 100-point based rating by five (5) to determine the 20-point based rating. This calculation is made because the score used in the past performance category of a construction manager selection is based on a 20-point scale. The overall performance descriptor is entered on the form and is assigned as follows:

18 - 20


15 - 17.9

Above Satisfactory

10 - 14.9


Less than 10

Less than Satisfactory


One evaluation is prepared for the joint venture and a copy of the evaluation is sent to each party to the joint venture.


The project manager finalizes the form, secures the approval of the Director of Project Management and signature of the Associate Vice President for Facilities.


The University sends a copy of the final evaluation to the rated firm, certified mail, return receipt requested. The transmittal letter must contain the following statement:"If you feel that your firm has been rated unfairly, you may appeal this rating by sending written notice stating the basis for your appeal. In order to be considered, such notice must be received by the University within 30 days of receipt of this letter."


If a CM appeals its rating within the required time, the rating committee will discuss the rating with the firm and attempt to resolve the differences informally. If informal discussions do not result in a resolution, the project manager will notify the firm in writing of the time and place to appear before a review committee. This notification shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested.

The review committee shall consist of: the University project manager, the Director of Project Management and other individuals, as appropriate.

The review committee discusses the rating and related issues and meets with the firm making the appeal to hear the basis for the appeal. After reviewing the circumstances surrounding the rating and appeal, the review committee makes a finding.

The University notifies the firm of the review committee's finding and sets forth specifically the basis of the finding. The firm will be notified that the finding of the review committee is final unless a formal hearing is requested within fourteen (14) days. The notification is sent certified mail, return receipt requested.


If the firm requests a hearing, the matter will be referred to the Department of Administrative Hearings for handling as prescribed in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. If the firm does not request a hearing, the finding of the review committee is final.


The FDC maintains a database of ratings. The overall rating for each firm will be updated each time a new rating is made. Ratings will be kept on current record for three (3) years. The overall rating is used as the "Past Performance" score in construction manager selections.

The FDC will determine the average rating for firms in the database. This average is used in the selection process for firms which have no rating with the University.


Evaluation form