Project Team Evaluations
**Please direct any questions to State.Architect@tn.gov and include "Project Team Evaluation" in the subject line.**
Terms to define
1. Capital Project Team Evaluation
The Office of the State Architect has established, through reviews and approval of our state and industry leaders, a Capital Project Team Evaluation process that will encompass design, construction, and SPA services. The intent is to create a 360 degree approach to evaluations by having designers, contractors, and SPA representatives evaluate each other’s services, and quality of services, through the course of a project. The goal of this process is to increase team communication at key points of the project. The number of interim evaluation points will be dependent on the size and schedule of the project but typically at least one interim evaluation should occur at the mid-point of the project design and construction schedule. This will allow time for constructive feedback on project team leaders’ performance and expectations during a project, and allow corrective actions and improvements to performance prior to final evaluations at the end of the project.
This new Capital Project Team Evaluation will begin on July 1 for all new FY 18/19 and appropriate ongoing capital projects for all SPAs. SPAs will determine which ongoing projects are appropriate to use this evaluation process. Evaluation forms and scoring rubrics are located on the OSA website for download and use. These forms consist of:
- Designer evaluation for projects and scoring rubric
- Designer evaluation for small projects and scoring rubric
- Contractor evaluation for Design/Bid/Build (D/B/B) and scoring rubric
- Contractor evaluation for CM/GC and scoring rubric
- SPA evaluation and scoring rubric
Completed evaluation forms are a required deliverable for the Designer, Contractor, and SPA project representatives, and should be referenced in the Designer and Contractor contracts.
1. SPA project lead to issue all applicable evaluation forms and scoring rubrics to the Designer at the Notice to Proceed meeting. Review the need to submit both an interim evaluation and a final evaluation during the course of the project. Define the appropriate points in the project for interim evaluations. All project team leaders should become familiar with the Designer evaluation and Contractor evaluation forms and emphasize the value of this evaluation as a tool for positive communications and continuous improvement.
2. Interim Evaluation – Depending on the duration of the design and construction phases of the project, this interim evaluation should occur during the mid-point of the design phase, and the mid-point of the construction phase for the appropriate team members. The evaluation form shall have the “interim” box checked. An interim evaluation meeting is expected to occur between the project team members who are being evaluated with open discussion about the intended scoring along with constructive observations regarding strengths and opportunities for improvement. The completed interim evaluations should be recorded and filed for reference during the final evaluation.
3. The designer evaluation is composed of two forms. One form is for “small projects” and the other form is for all other design projects. The “small projects” form is for design projects which have limited scope and compressed design phases.
4. The contractor evaluation is composed of two forms. One form is for Design/Bid/Build projects, and the other form is for CM/GC projects.
5. Final Evaluation – This final evaluation should occur at the close out phase of the project. The recorded interim evaluation should be used as a comparative means in determining final scoring. These final evaluations should occur within a project team review meeting along with the SPA supervisor and include open discussions regarding intended scoring and time for rebuttals. Final intended scoring can be adjusted during this meeting. Final project evaluation scores shall be forwarded to OSA by the SPA Authorized Representative.
Cumulative Evaluation Scoring
1. Final project evaluation scoring will accumulate for each Designer and Contractor through the course of each project completion through the years. Each entity’s project final evaluation score will be averaged with that entity’s following project final evaluation score and so on. OSA will collect, average and maintain cumulative scoring for Designers and Contractors.
2. These accumulated and averaged project evaluation scores will be factored and weighted in all future SPA LOIs, RFQs, and RFPs. The determination of the weighting of these evaluation scores will be determined directly by the SPA.
1. Confirmation of scoring, among those evaluated, will occur during the final evaluation scoring meeting between the project team members and the SPA supervisor.
2. If an evaluated project team member has a grievance with a score, than a written request should be made with the Office of the State Architect (OSA). OSA may forward any grievance that it determines to be punitive without cause to an empaneled appeal board.
Note: Each form includes the associated Rubric.
Most capital projects are approved as a part of the annual budget cycle either as appropriated line items or as disclosed projects (Higher Education projects only). Listed below are the approved lists from previous years. Each year after the Governor’s “State of the State” address, the list of projects proposed to the Legislature is posted. This list is replaced by the final list of approved projects upon passage of the annual Appropriations Act, commonly referred to as the “Budget”. Funding for these projects typically becomes available on July 1 of each year.
- 2019 - 2020 Fiscal Year (Proposed)
- 2018 - 2019 Fiscal Year (Approved)
- 2017 - 2018 Fiscal Year (Approved)
- 2016 - 2017 Fiscal Year (Approved)
- 2015 - 2016 Fiscal Year (Approved)
- 2014 - 2015 Fiscal Year (Approved)
- 2013 - 2014 Fiscal Year (Approved)
- 2012 - 2013 Fiscal Year (Approved)
Designer selections are performed in accordance with the OSA Designer Selection Process. Final selections of designers are made by the Executive Subcommittee of the SBC based on recommendations of the SPAs and the user agency or campus. Designers are selected in this matter for all capital projects approved by the SBC that require the use of a designer.
Designer Manuals & Projects Requiring Designers:
Design-Bid-Build is the standard method for the State to deliver most construction projects. Upon request of the SPA and approval of the SBC, projects may be procured using the alternative delivery methods of prequalifying Contractors (Best Value) or using a Construction Manager (CM/GC). All delivery methods are performed in accordance with the OSA Construction Delivery Methods. Individual construction project procurements are handled by each SPA’s contract division.
AIA Document A201-2017 for all of Higher Education (proforma) Updated 4/2/19
AIA Document A201-2017 for all of STREAM (proforma)
|Design-Bid-Build / Projects Out for RFQ-Best Value / Construction Procurement - RFP for CM/GC|
|Austin Peay State University (APSU)|
|East Tennessee State University (ETSU)|
|Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU)|
|State of TN Real Estate Asset Management (STREAM)|
|Tennessee Technological University (TTU)|
|TN Board of Regents (TBR)|
|University of Memphis (UoM)|
|University of Tennessee (UT)|
Per the provisions of TCA 4-15-104, the Commission is authorized to prescribe standards for the construction of State buildings. Additionally, the Commission is encouraged to prescribe high performance building requirements and other standards to ensure all State Buildings perform in an energy efficient manner.