Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-12; Contractor Performance Evaluation Program -Overview (Districts -All); Gomez, PazTo the members of the: CITY COUNCIL Date~ CA ✓CC✓ CM ✓ ACM ✓ DCM {3)\L February 12, 2026 Council Memorandum To: From: Honorable Mayor Blackburn and Members of the City Council Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Public Works Via: {city of Carlsbad Memo ID# 2026003 Re: Sheila Cobian, Assistant City Manager ~ Contractor Performance Evaluation Program -Overview (Districts -All) This memorandum provides information related to the upcoming implementation of a standardized Contractor Performance Evaluation Program to support effective contract administration. Background The city will be implementing a standardized Contractor Performance Evaluation Program to promote consistent project execution and adherence to city standards. The program will use structured, data-driven assessments to support transparency and effective contract management. The program's key objectives will include: • Data-Driven Transparency: Establishing a consistent method for documenting contractor performance across projects to assess whether contractual expectations are being met • Informed Procurement Decisions: Maintaining performance history to inform future contract administration and procurement activities, where permitted by law • Performance Improvement and Accountability: Supporting improved project outcomes through documentation of contractor performance over time • Centralized Information Sharing: Facilitating consistent access to performance information across departments Discussion Contractor performance evaluations assist in managing the risk of contractor underperformance, particularly for Public Works contracts that must be awarded to the lowest responsible, responsive bidder. Without consistent documentation, the city has limited ability to assess past performance when administering contracts or evaluating future responsibility. The Contractor Performance Evaluation Program will not modify statutory procurement requirements and will be applied in a manner consistent with the California Public Contract Code. Public Works Branch 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 442-339-2507 t Council Memo -Contractor Performance Evaluation Program -Overview (Districts -All) February 12, 2026 Page 2 Key benefits of the evaluation process will include: • Contractor Support and Coaching: Providing contractors, including small or first-time public agency contractors, with structured feedback to support performance improvement • Formalized Feedback: Offering a consistent framework for staff to discuss performance expectations and outcomes during active contracts • Risk Mitigation: Identifying firms with documented performance issues to inform future responsibility determinations, consistent with applicable law • Oversight and Reporting: Enabling management review of performance trends to support effective contract oversight The evaluation process, overseen by the designated project engineers and project managers for the contracts, will establish a standardized record across five performance areas: • Specifications and standards • Responsiveness • Cost control • Communication • Safety As part of the pilot program in the Public Works Branch, evaluations will be completed at Public Works contract closeout, with interim or milestone evaluations conducted for multi-year or phased projects as appropriate. The evaluations will be shared with the contractors. Performance will be measured using a three-tier rating system: exceptional, satisfactory or unsatisfactory, in response to the contractor performance evaluation questions shown in Attachment A. Evaluation records will be maintained in the city's records management system and used to inform future contract administration and responsibility determinations. Contractors will have an opportunity to submit written responses to the evaluations, which will be retained with the evaluation record. At this time, performance evaluation records are intended to establish objective, consistent documentation that may be used to inform future responsibility determinations. Next Steps Staff will be issuing notices to contractors regarding the program by the end of February 2026. Following the pilot phase of one year within the Public Works Branch, staff will assess whether the program should be considered for expansion to other contract types and/or additional departments. Staff are also reviewing vendor evaluation tools associated with the Core System Modernization effort, which is expected to go live later this year. Any future consideration of suspension or Council Memo -Contractor Performance Evaluation Program -Overview (Districts -All) February 12, 2026 Page 3 debarment policies associated with contractor performance would be subject to City Council direction, applicable law and due process requirements. Attachment: A. Contractor Performance Evaluation Questions cc: Geoff Patnoe, City Manager Cindie McMahon, City Attorney Jeff Murphy, Deputy City Manager, Community Services Laura Rocha, Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Christie Calderwood, Police Chief Michael Calderwood, Fire Chief Tim Lyons, Assistant City Attorney Maria Callander, Information Technology Director Amanda Flesse, Utilities Director Tom Frank, Transportation Director/City Engineer Zach Korach, Finance Director Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director Faviola Medina, Constituent & Clerk Services Director Suzanne Smithson, Library & Cultural Arts Director Mike Strong, Community Development Director Amy Ventetuolo, Communication & Engagement Director James Wood, Environmental Sustainability Director Roxanne Muhlmeister, Assistant Finance Director Emily Hasegawa, Engineering Manager John Maashoff, Public Works Manager Greg Maclellan, Business Technology Manager Megan Powers, Senior Management Analyst Jennifer Chapman, Senior Contract Administrator Eleida Felix Yackel, Senior Contract Administrator Shea Sainz, Senior Contract Administrator Attachment A Contractor Performance Evaluation Questions Specifications & Standards 1. Did the contractor meet all specified performance metrics and service levels? 2. Was project documentation accurate, complete, and submitted as required? 3. Did workmanship meet or exceed industry standards? 4. Did the contractor avoid undue disruptions to City or CMWD operations and public services? 5. Did the contractor comply with local, state, and environmental regulations and permit conditions? 6. Did the contractor attend required meetings and events, prepared and on time? 7. Did the contractor adhere to the contract schedule and demonstrate diligent work progress? 8. If applicable, did the contractor effectively manage subcontractors? Responsiveness 1. Did the contractor promptly identify and address issues or conditions affecting the performance of the work? 2. Were corrective actions implemented in a timely and effective manner upon discovery or request? 3. Did the contractor proactively identify and implement measures to prevent or resolve future issues? 4. Was the project site kept clean, organized, and secure? 5. Were qualified personnel and adequate equipment provided per contract requirements? 6. Were urgent requests handled within project requirements? 7. Was the contractor cooperative regarding schedule reviews and necessary adjustments? Cost Control 1. Were costs maintained within the approved budget for controllable items? 2. Did the contractor communicate transparently about financial matters affecting scope or outcomes? 3. Were time and material records and change order documentation submitted per contract? 4. Were change orders managed appropriately and submitted in a timely manner? 5. Was extra work properly reported, approved, and documented? 6. Were any contractor-related stop payment issues resolved without impacting progress? Communication 1. Did the contractor comply with the City's respectful workplace and anti-harassment requirements? 2. Were disputes resolved effectively and proactively? 3. Was the contractor responsive to City or CMWD staff and public inquiries or complaints? 4. Were Requests for Information (RFls), if applicable, clearly written, relevant, and complete? Safety & Risk Management 1. Did the contractor comply with safety regulations and manage incidents per safety (OSHA) and industry standards? 2. Were City or CMWD staff notified of safety incidents appropriately and promptly? 3. Did the contractor take steps to prevent damage to the worksite or installed equipment or facilities? 4. Were actions taken to avoid job restrictions or stop work orders? 5. Did the contractor prevent undue risks and liabilities to the City or CMWD? 6. Could any safety incidents have been prevented through better planning or best management practices? 7. Were field managers (e.g., superintendent or foreman) experienced and effective in overseeing the work?