Section 650.240  Performance Factor (PF)

a)         The Performance Factor is a numerical value which is determined by the contractor's performance evaluation in a work category during the previous year.  At the close of each construction season, the  Department, other State agencies or authorities using contractors based on the prequalification decisions of the Department and officials of a unit of local government administering a contract approved for award by the Department will evaluate each contractor who performed work for them during the previous year either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor.  This information is submitted on the Contractor's Annual Performance Report (BC-1777), and will be held confidential from disclosure in accordance with Section 7(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act [5 ILCS 140/7(1)(a)]. The performance evaluations are based on:

1)         The quality of work performed for each work category defined in Section 650.Appendix A of this Part.

2)         The overall execution of work as measured by evaluating six categories.

A)        Organization and prosecution of the work;

B)        Cooperation with public agency personnel responsible for contract administration and inspection;

C)        Traffic control and site protection as provided by contract requirements;

D)        Compliance with EEO and labor requirements; 

E)        Erosion Control; and

F)         Contractor's ability to meet the Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA) plan as provided by contract requirements for materials production/construction quality control.

b)         The performance evaluation scale is a rating from 2.0 to 8.0 in accordance with the following definitions:

            8.0  Excellent

            7.0  Good

            6.0  Satisfactory

            4.0  Marginal

            2.0  Poor

c)         The quality and evaluating categories under execution of work are defined and rated as follows.

1)         Quality − The project's durability and appearance, the knowledge of supervisory personnel, and the compliance with contract requirements (i.e., plans, specifications, field inspection, etc.) are considered.

2)         Quality Scale

8.0       The contractor exceeded project requirements in all areas considered.

7.0       The contractor exceeded project requirements in a majority of areas considered.

6.0       The contractor met project requirements in all areas considered.

4.0       The contractor did not meet project requirements in one area considered.

2.0       The contractor did not meet project requirements in two or more areas considered.

3)         Organization/Prosecution − The contractor's ability to diligently prosecute work by planning and scheduling labor, materials and the work of subcontractors on the project site are considered.

4)         Organization/Prosecution Scale

8.0       The contractor exceeded project requirements in all areas considered and completed the project well ahead of schedule.

7.0       The contractor exceeded project requirements in a majority of areas considered and the project was completed slightly ahead of schedule.

6.0       The contractor met project requirements in all areas considered and the scheduled completion date was met.

4.0       The contractor did not meet project requirements in one area considered and occasionally did not work when conditions permitted.  The scheduled completion date was met.

2.0       The contractor did not meet project requirements in two or more areas considered and the scheduled completion date was not met.

5)         Cooperation − The contractor's willingness to negotiate contract disputes, to respond to reasonable requests by the resident engineer and to respond to various Departmental correspondence are considered.

6)         Cooperation

8.0       The contractor exceeded project requirements in all areas considered.

7.0       The contractor exceeded project requirements in a majority of areas considered.

6.0       The contractor met project requirements in all areas considered.

4.0       The contractor did not meet project requirements in one area considered.

2.0       The contractor did not meet project requirements in two or more areas considered.

7)         Traffic Control/Site Protection − The appearance of the traffic control devices, the response to repair deficient devices and the contractor's willingness to comply with the Traffic Control Plan (TCP) are considered.

8)         Traffic Control/Site Protection

8.0       The contractor exceeded project requirements in all areas considered.

7.0       The contractor exceeded project requirements in a majority of areas considered.

6.0       The contractor met project requirements in all areas considered.

4.0       The contractor did not meet project requirements in one area considered.

2.0       Either the contractor did not meet project requirements in two or more areas considered or the contractor committed an act or omission which seriously compromised the safety of the public.

9)         EEO/Labor Compliance − The contractor's compliance with the Equal Employment Opportunity program and compliance with labor laws are considered.

10)         EEO/Labor Compliance

8.0       The contractor exceeded project requirements.

7.0       The contractor met project requirements through extraordinary effort and initiative.

6.0       The contractor met project requirements with minimum effort and initiative.

4.0       The contractor met project requirements, but had to be motivated by Department personnel.

2.0       The contractor did not meet project requirements.

11)         Erosion Control − The contractor's compliance with the project's erosion control plan and all pertinent federal and State laws, permits and regulations.

12)         Erosion Control

8.0       The contractor exceeded project requirements.

7.0       The contractor exceeded project in a majority of the areas considered.

6.0       The contractor met project requirements in all areas.

4.0       The contractor did not meet the project requirements in one area considered.

2.0       The contractor did not meet the contract requirements in two or more areas.

13)         QC/QA − The contractor's ability to meet QC/QA inspection, testing, and documentation requirements; take control of the product; take corrective action; and communicate production/construction issues to Department personnel are considered.

14)         QC/QA Scale

8.0       The contractor exceeded QC/QA requirements in all areas considered.

7.0       The contractor exceeded QC/QA requirements in a majority of areas considered.

6.0       The contractor met QC/QA requirements in all areas considered.

4.0       The contractor did not meet QC/QA requirements in one area considered.

2.0       The contractor did not meet QC/QA requirements in two or more areas considered.

d)         The Performance Factor is calculated by first determining the Project Cost Ratio (PCR) for the relevant work category.  The PCR is the ratio of the value of all contracts being evaluated to the value of all contracts performed. Secondly, a weighted performance evaluation value is established for each performance evaluation completed by determining the product of the PCR, the rating for quality given on the relevant performance evaluation and the averaged ratings for execution given on the relevant performance evaluation divided by 6.  Finally, the summation of all weighted performance evaluation values is divided by 6 to arrive at the PF.

e)         A work rating will be subject to denial or revocation if the summation of all weighted performance evaluation values for a work rating category is less than 6.0 for two successive years.  A work rating will be subject to denial or revocation if the summation of all weighted performance evaluation values for a work rating category is less than 4.0 for one year.

f)         The Department will evaluate performance on any individual contract or group of contracts for purposes of determining the current responsibility of a contractor when the Engineer of Construction has determined that performance on any contract or contracts may not be acceptable and that an immediate evaluation is necessary to assess the responsibility of a contractor in order to protect the interests of the State in sound procurement practices.  If the evaluation ordered by the Engineer of Construction results in the quality of work or the average overall execution of work ratings being rated at less than 4.0, the work ratings evaluated will be revoked.

g)         If a contractor receives a Quality of Work Rating of 2 for any work category being evaluated on any one contract, the work rating will be revoked.

h)         The contractor shall be notified of the performance evaluation in writing within 14 days with a detailed explanation of any substandard items.  If a performance evaluation results in a denied, reduced or revoked work rating, the contractor may proceed with the review procedures in accordance with Section 650.150 of this Part.

i)          If an applicant did not have a contract with the Department in the previous year, the last evaluation issued within a five year period will be used.  If an applicant has not had an evaluation in the last five years or is applying for an initial rating in a category and lists no public agencies or private customers as references, a Performance Factor of "1" will be used until an actual evaluation is made.

(Source:  Amended at 30 Ill. Reg. 16373, effective October 10, 2006)