U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000

Skip to content
FacebookTwitter YouTube Flickr LinkedIn
U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration

Construction

 

Questionnaire Regarding State DOT Approaches for Dealing with Unsatisfactory Contractor Performance (time and quality)

  1. How does your state define unsatisfactory contract prosecution and progress? (Please indicate the response that best describes your current State policy.)
    1. Numeric comparison of the percentages of contract payments vs. contract time (At what point is progress considered unsatisfactory?) - 18 - (AL, AR, AZ, FL, HI, KS, LA, MD, MS, NC, NM, NV, OK, PR, SC, TN, VT, WY)
    2. No numeric definition, but contractual measures are invoked when a contractor cannot justify unsatisfactory progress - 13 (CO, CT, CFLHD, EFLHD, IA, ID, IL, IN, ND, NJ, NY, OH, TX )
    3. Unsatisfactory progress for activities on the critical path or controlling items of work - 16 (AZ, MI, MD, ME, MN, MO, NE, NY, PA, RI, SD, UT, VA, WA, WFLHD, WV)
    4. Other (please explain) - 8 (AK, GA, IA, LA, MA, MO, NH, OR
  2. List the methods currently available in your agency for dealing with unsatisfactory contract prosecution and progress (indicate all that apply):
    1. Withholding progress payments - 35 (AL, CA, CO, CFLHD, EFLHD, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, LA, MA, MD, MI, MO, MN, MS, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, WFLHD, WY)
    2. Assessing liquidated damages - 45 (AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, CFLHD, EFLHD, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, LA, MA, MD, ME, MO, MI, MN, MS, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WFLHD, WV, WY )
    3. Performance evaluations directly lead to an adjustment of prequalification capacity rating with the completion of every contract (explanations suggested) - 9 (FL, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, MO, NE, VT)
    4. Performance evaluations indirectly lead to an adjustment of prequalification capacity rating only when consistent or below average performance is noted over several contracts - 17 (CA, IN, KS, MA, MI, ND, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, SD, UT, WA, WV, WY)
    5. Removal from the prequalification list - 19 (AL, IA, IL, IN, KS, MA, MO, NC, ND, NE, NH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, VT, VA, WA )
    6. Increasing retainage on future contracts - 2 (ID, MD )
    7. Initiating termination procedures - 34 (AK, CA, CFLHD, CO, CT, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MS, NC, ND, NE, NM, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PR, RI, TN, VT, VA, WA, WFLHD )
    8. Other (please explain) - 12 (AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, HI, IL, LA, NJ, NM, TX
  3. Which method in Question No. 2 is used the most in your state to deal with unsatisfactory contract prosecution and progress?
    1. 12 ( EFLHD, GA, ID, HI, IN, MN, NE, NM, OH, RI, UT, VA)
    2. 28 (AL, AK, AR, CFLHD, CO, CT, FL, HI, IA, IL, IN, MD, ME, MN, MO, ND, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, PR, SC, SD, TN, TX, WA, WFLHD)
    3. 6 (AL (most effective), CA, FL, IA, VT, WY)
    4. 6 (KS, NH, NJ, MI, OR, WV)
    5. 1 (NC)
    6. 0
    7. 0
    8. Other -5 (AZ, LA, MA, MS, NM
  4. Does your state generally inform the contractor's bonding company when it is determined that the contractor's prosecution and progress is unsatisfactory?
    • Yes - 22 (AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, EFLHD, FL, GA, HI, IN, KS, LA, MS, ND, NC, NJ, NE, NM, OK, OR, RI, WFLHD)
    • No - 10 (CO, IL, MI, MD, ME, PA, UT, VT, WA, WY)
    • Yes, but rarely or only as a last resort - 13 (AK, CFLHD, IA, ID, MA, MO, NH, NV, NY, OH, PR, SD, VA)
    • Other qualified response - 5 (MN, SC, TN, TX, WV
  5. If the answer to question No. 4 is yes, does the involvement of the bonding company generally result in improved contract prosecution and progress?
    • Yes -14 ( AK, CA, EFLHD, GA, HI, ID, IN, LA, MN, MS, NE, NM, RI, SD) No - 4 (AR, PR, VA, WFLHD)
    • Not applicable - 6 (OH, TN, UT, VT, WA, WY)
    • Sometimes - 7 (CT, FL, IA, KS, ND, NJ, OK)
    • Unknown -2 (AL, CO)
    • Qualified response: 11 (AZ, CFLHD, MA, NC, NH, NV, NY, OR, SC, TX, WV
  6. How does your State define unacceptable quality in the performance of the work? (For example: quality of materials, quality of the constructed product, quality of traffic control facilities, timely submittal of documentation, cooperation, safety compliance, public coordination, etc. ( indicate all that apply.)
    1. Through the use of quality assurance specifications - 43 (AL, AK, AR, AZ, CA, CFLHD, CT, CO, EFLHD, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, KS, LA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, ND, NC, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PR, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WFLHD, WV, WY)
    2. Through the use of means and method specifications - 29 (AK, AR, CA, CFLHD, CO, CT, HI, IA, ID, IL, MD, MI, MN, MS, NC, ND, NE, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, SC, SD, TN, VT, VA, WA, WY)
    3. Through performance related specifications or warranties - 21 (CA, CFLHD, CO, CT, HI, ID, IL, MD, MI, MN, MS, NH, NM, NY, OH, OR, SC, UT, VA, WA, WFLHD)
    4. Through State DOT evaluations during the performance of the contract - 28 (AR, CA, CFLHD, CO, CT, FL, HI, IA, IL, IN, KS, LA, MD, MI, MS, OR, PA, NC, NJ, NV, RI, SC, TN, UT, VT, VA, WA, WFLHD)
    5. Through State DOT evaluations after the completion of the contract - 21 (CA, CFLHD, FL, IA, IL, IN, KS, MD, ME, MI, NC, NE, NH, OR, PA, SC, SD, VT, WA, WV, WY)
    6. Other (please explain) - 8 ( AL, AZ, CFLHD, MA, NC, NJ, NV, UT
  7. How does the State use contract performance evaluation data? (other than contract progress, for example: quality of materials, quality of the constructed product, quality of traffic control facilities, timely submittal of documentation, cooperation, safety compliance, public coordination, etc. )
    1. Performance evaluations directly lead to an adjustment of prequalification capacity rating with the completion of every contract (explanations suggested) - 7 (FL, GA, IA, IL, ME, MO, NE)
    2. Performance evaluations indirectly lead to an adjustment of prequalification capacity rating only when consistent or below average performance is noted over several contracts - 18 (CA, IN, KS, MI, MO, ND, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, SD, UT, VA, WA, WV, WY)
    3. Removal from the prequalification list - 15 (AL, IA, IL, IN, MO, NC, ND, NE, NH, OH, OR, PA, UT, VT,VA)
    4. Increase retainage on future contracts - 3 ( AR, MD, MO)
    5. Initiate termination procedures - 13 (CA, CFLHD, IN, MD, MO, NC, ND, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, VT)
    6. Other (please explain) - 23 (AL, AR, AZ, CA, CFLHD, CO, CT, EFLHD, HI, ID, IL, LA, MA, MN, MS, NY, OK, PR, RI, SC, TN, TX, WFLHD
  8. Does your state have a process for rewarding above average performance? (other than incentives based on quality assurance specifications)? If yes, please explain.
    • No - 32 (AR, AZ, CA, CFLHD, CO, CT, EFLHD, FL, GA, HI, ID, IN, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WLFHD, WV, WY)
    • Yes -14 (AL, IA, IL, KS, LA, MD, MO, NY, OK, OR, PA, PR, SC, WA)
    • Other - 3 (AK, MA, OH
  9. Does your state have a contractor prequalification process?
    • No - 12 (AK, CA, CFLHD, EFLHD, ID, LA, MN, MO, NY, PR, RI, WFLHD)
    • Yes - 34 (AL, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IA, IL, IN, KS, MA, ME, MI, NC, ND, NJ, NE, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WY)
    • May be used on individual projects - 2 (MD, MS)
    • Other - 1 (AZ)

Contact

Updated: 06/27/2017
Privacy Policy | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Accessibility | Web Policies & Notices | No Fear Act | Report Waste, Fraud and Abuse
U.S. DOT Home | USA.gov | WhiteHouse.gov

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000