Responsible Executive: Vice President for Finance and Administration

Approving Official: Vice President for Finance and Administration

Effective Date: April 8, 2019

Last Revision Date: 01/01/2014

1. INTRODUCTION
   1. This policy establishes procedures for the evaluation of Construction Managers (CM’s) while under contract for a project at Florida State University.
2. POLICY
   1. Construction Managers are rated annually while under contract at Florida State University. Ratings are maintained on file, and these past performance ratings serve as a portion of the score on selections for future FSU projects.
      1. EVALUATION SCHEDULE
         1. Construction Managers under Contract to Florida State University are evaluated by the Facilities Design and Construction Office on an annual basis in January for the preceding calendar year. A rating will be given for projects whose construction cost exceeds $25,000. In order to be rated, a firm must have been under contract for at least two months of the rating period. A special evaluation may be conducted at any time when a significant change in performance occurs.
      2. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF RATING
         1. 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:
            1. 5 = Outstanding
               4 = Above Satisfactory
               3 = Satisfactory (meets expectations)
               2 = Less than Satisfactory
               1 = Poor
         2. A satisfactory score of 3, is the benchmark rating and is defined as the level of performance that meets contract requirements.
      3. EVALUATION FORM (FORMS SECTION) INFORMATION
         1. “FIRM” is the name of the firm being evaluated. “Managing Office” is the address of the company office providing the service, as stated in the Construction Manager Agreement. If the firm is a Joint Venture, the name of the firm should be the name as it appears on the executed Joint Venture Agreement and registered with the State of Florida. "PROJECT MANAGER:" is the name of the primary contact with the firm for the project.
      4. BASIC RATING CRITERIA
         1. Team:
            Evaluates the performance and effort specific to the consultant’s personnel, including their attentiveness to the project requirements; provision of extraordinary services or special expertise. Documents the degree to which the firm’s team members cooperated with the Owner and design professional for the protection and advancement of the interests of FSU.
         2. Pre-Construction:
            Evaluates the firm’s ability to analyze the Design Documents and recommend creative approaches to make construction more efficient and reduce costs. The ability to work with the design team to improve the constructability of the Project and assist in the design development is documented, along with evaluation of the accuracy of the firm’s estimating. Coordination and scheduling of the work is rated for its response to Owner needs and reasonable sequencing. Division of the work into subcontract packages which meet the budget, available funding, quality, and schedule requirements is evaluated.
         3. Construction:
            The firm’s abilities to meet and maintain the budget and schedule required by the University are documented. The CM is evaluated for their handling of construction changes, and the associated paperwork/documentation is evaluated for accuracy, timeliness, and consistency with University procedures. Site management is evaluated for safety, cleanliness, and orderly management, and the construction is evaluated for quality workmanship and adherence to the construction documents. Compliance with stipulated testing requirements and results is documented.
         4. Post-Construction Administration:
            The firm is evaluated for management and rapid completion of the Punchlist and resolving of warranty issues. As-built documentation, O&M documents, Owner training, close-out documents and other record documents produced by the firm are evaluated for completeness, organization, and ease of reference during maintenance. The firm’s assistance with other project services completed during the post-construction phase, including LEED documentation, furnishings/equipment installation and procurement are evaluated.
      5. FINAL RATING
         1. The 100-point based rating is divided by 5 to determine the 20-point based rating. This calculation is made because the score used in the past performance category of an Construction Manager selection is based on a 20-point scale. The overall performance descriptor is entered on the form, and is assigned as follows:
            1. 18 - 20 Outstanding
               15 - 17.9 Above Satisfactory
               10 - 14.9 Satisfactory
               0.0 - 1.9 Less than Satisfactory
      6. RATINGS FOR JOINT VENTURES
         1. One evaluation is prepared for the Joint Venture, and a copy of the evaluation is sent to each party to the Joint Venture.
      7. APPROVAL
         1. The Project Manager finalizes the form, and secures the approval and signature of the Director of Project Management.
      8. TRANSMITTAL OF RATING TO FIRM
         1. 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."
      9. APPEAL OF RATINGS
         1. If a Construction Manager appeals its rating within the required time, the FDC 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.
         2. The Review Committee shall consist of: the University Project Manager, the Director of Design & Construction, and other individuals involved with the project, and other individuals as appropriate.
         3. 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.
         4. 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.
      10. REQUEST FOR HEARING
          1. If the firm requests a hearing, the matter will be reviewed as prescribed in Florida Board of Governors Regulation 18.002. If the firm does not request a hearing, the finding of the Review Committee is final.
      11. MAINTENANCE OF RATING DATABASE
          1. The FDC maintains a data base of ratings. The overall rating for each firm will be updated each time a new rating is received. 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.
          2. The FDC will determine the average rating for firms in the data base. This average is used in the selection process for firms which have no rating with the University.
3. LEGAL SUPPORT, JUSTIFICATION, AND REVIEW OF THIS POLICY
   • Sections 287.055(3)(d)