A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Construction Contractor Performance Evaluation as a Control Mechanism
This thesis examined the Naval Facilities Engineering Command's current use of construction contractor performance evaluations (SF 1420) from the viewpoint of accepted control and measurement theory. Surveys of field contract administrators, supervisory civil engineers, field contract specialists, and construction contractors were completed to assess their use of and views about the evaluations. The study concluded that: (1) NAVFAC lacks standards of performance to describe the distinction between satisfactory, outstanding, and unsatisfactory performances; (2) Contractors are not generally aware of the evaluation process; (3) Evaluations are not used to provide contractors feedback; (4) Evaluators are not well trained; (5) Evaluations are not fully utilized; and (6) The data base of evaluation information is inadequate. The study recommends that: (1) NAVFAC issue a policy statement to contractors to clarify the evaluations uses, standards, and performance elements; (2) interim evaluations be issued to provide contractors feedback; (3) contractors receive copies of all their evaluations; (4) evaluators receive uniform training on completion of evaluations; (5) SF 1420 be modified to allow for a more specific evaluation. (Author)
Construction Contractor Performance Evaluation as a Control Mechanism
This thesis examined the Naval Facilities Engineering Command's current use of construction contractor performance evaluations (SF 1420) from the viewpoint of accepted control and measurement theory. Surveys of field contract administrators, supervisory civil engineers, field contract specialists, and construction contractors were completed to assess their use of and views about the evaluations. The study concluded that: (1) NAVFAC lacks standards of performance to describe the distinction between satisfactory, outstanding, and unsatisfactory performances; (2) Contractors are not generally aware of the evaluation process; (3) Evaluations are not used to provide contractors feedback; (4) Evaluators are not well trained; (5) Evaluations are not fully utilized; and (6) The data base of evaluation information is inadequate. The study recommends that: (1) NAVFAC issue a policy statement to contractors to clarify the evaluations uses, standards, and performance elements; (2) interim evaluations be issued to provide contractors feedback; (3) contractors receive copies of all their evaluations; (4) evaluators receive uniform training on completion of evaluations; (5) SF 1420 be modified to allow for a more specific evaluation. (Author)
Construction Contractor Performance Evaluation as a Control Mechanism
S. R. Iselin (author)
1986
92 pages
Report
No indication
English
Management Practice , Construction , Contractors , Contracts , Control systems , Data bases , Feedback , Measurement , Specialists , Theory , Ratings
Construction: Contractor Performance Evaluations
NTIS | 1993
Relationship between construction performance evaluation and contractor characteristics in Japan
| BASE | 2018
Contractor Quality Control: An Evaluation
| ASCE | 2021
Construction: Contractor Submittal Procedures
NTIS | 1997