Questionnaire Regarding State DOT Approaches for Dealing with Unsatisfactory Contractor Performance (time and quality)
- How does your state define unsatisfactory contract prosecution and progress? (Please indicate the response that best describes your current State policy.)
- 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)
- 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 )
- 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)
- Other (please explain) - 8 (AK, GA, IA, LA, MA, MO, NH, OR
- List the methods currently available in your agency for dealing with unsatisfactory contract prosecution and progress (indicate all that apply):
- 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)
- 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 )
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 )
- Increasing retainage on future contracts - 2 (ID, MD )
- 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 )
- Other (please explain) - 12 (AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, HI, IL, LA, NJ, NM, TX
- Which method in Question No. 2 is used the most in your state to deal with unsatisfactory contract prosecution and progress?
- 12 ( EFLHD, GA, ID, HI, IN, MN, NE, NM, OH, RI, UT, VA)
- 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)
- 6 (AL (most effective), CA, FL, IA, VT, WY)
- 6 (KS, NH, NJ, MI, OR, WV)
- 1 (NC)
- 0
- 0
- Other -5 (AZ, LA, MA, MS, NM
- 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
- 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
- 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.)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Other (please explain) - 8 ( AL, AZ, CFLHD, MA, NC, NJ, NV, UT
- 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. )
- 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)
- 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)
- Removal from the prequalification list - 15 (AL, IA, IL, IN, MO, NC, ND, NE, NH, OH, OR, PA, UT, VT,VA)
- Increase retainage on future contracts - 3 ( AR, MD, MO)
- Initiate termination procedures - 13 (CA, CFLHD, IN, MD, MO, NC, ND, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, VT)
- 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
- 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
- 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)