4-OP-B-11-G1 Architect/Engineer Evaluations

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. This policy establishes procedures for the evaluation of Architects/Engineers (A/E) while under contract for a project at Florida State University.
    1. Architects and Engineers (A/E) 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. Architects and Engineers under contract to Florida State University are evaluated by the Facilities Design and Construction Office on an annual basis. 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. An evaluation may be conducted at any time when a significant change in performance occurs.
        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. Satisfactory, a score of 3, is the benchmark rating, and is defined as the level of performance that meets Contract requirements.
        1. “FIRM” is the name of the firm being evaluated. Firm address is the site of the company office providing the service, as stated in the Architect/Engineer 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.
        1. Team:
          Evaluates the performance and effort specific to the consultant’s personnel, including their attentiveness to the project requirements; achievement of design response; provision of extraordinary services or special expertise. 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.
        2. Pre Design Analysis:
          Evaluates the quality and timeliness of pre-design services such as feasibility studies, master planning, facility programming, and design criteria.
        3. Design:
          Documents the clarity, accuracy, and general utility of technical documentation produced by the firm. This documentation includes reports, drawings, specifications, sketches, renderings, promotional materials, and various other forms of documentation intended to communicate information about the Project to the Owner, construction team or others. Such documentation may not be in final form; the fundamental issue is how well it accomplishes its intended purpose with minimum problems. Such problems may include mistakes in design 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 technical skills and/or project specific knowledge that the firm is expected to have or to obtain. The firm is, also, evaluated for its ability to set realistic schedules for the delivery of its services and to meet approved schedules.
        4. Construction Administration:
          Documents the accuracy, timeliness of submission, and thoroughness of paperwork associated with the administration of the Project after the start of construction. Such paperwork includes Pay Requests, RFI responses, ASI’s, Status Reports, Change Orders, and shop drawing review. The firm is evaluated for its overall effectiveness in administering and enforcing the contract during construction. This item specifically includes an appraisal of the firm's effectiveness in working with the Contractor to bring the project to a timely completion, keeping abreast of progress status, detecting problems, providing direction to the Contractor, inspecting the work and development of a punch list.
        5. Post Construction Administration:
          The firm is evaluated for management and assistance in completing the punchlist and resolving warranty issues. As built documentation 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 procurement, and project close-out are evaluated.
        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 Architect/Engineer 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
          2. 15 - 17.9 Above Satisfactory
          3. 10 - 14.9 Satisfactory
          4. 0.0 - 1.9 Less than Satisfactory
        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 Design and Construction.
        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."
        1. If the Architect/Engineer 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.
        2. The Review Committee shall consist of: the University Project Manager, the Director of Design and Construction, 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.
        1. If the firm requests a hearing, the matter will be referred 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.
        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 Architect/Engineer 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.
    • Sections 287.055(3)(d)