Consultant and Contractor Performance Evaluations

The Real Property Branch (RPB) and Real Property Contracting (RPC) in conjunction with the Canadian Construction Association and the Professional Associations of architects and engineers have established a generic framework with specific evaluation criteria to objectively assess the quality of services provided by consultants and contractors on federal real property projects in an effort to:

Performance evaluations are concerned with both the quality of project deliverables and the manner in which they are delivered. They are critical to the success of real property procurement. The results of performance evaluations may affect a firm's eligibility for future real property contracts, therefore they must be completed promptly and accurately to reflect the work that was completed. It is the responsibility of RPC to ensure that the Consultant and Contractor Performance Evaluation Forms developed for this purpose are completed by project managers (CPERF 2913 and 2913-1 available in ELF).

A Contract Performance Review Committee has been established to manage the contract performance evaluation process. The evaluation reports must be completed for all real property contracts regardless of value. RPB is responsible through its PM's and in-house design managers to ensure that all consultants and contractors are held responsible to provide quality services and products.

Performance Evaluation Criteria


A firm's performance is assessed for both 'product' and 'services' through the use of generic performance evaluation forms. Quality of the 'product' assesses the quality of the completed facility/project in terms of how successfully it fulfills the stated objectives for the project. In the case of studies and briefs, where there is no built work involved, the product refers to the actual work produced by a consultant. Quality of 'services' assesses the firm's ability to manage and deliver professional services in a comprehensive, effective, reliable and timely manner throughout each stage of the project. Individual evaluation criterion are pre-established and are as detailed on the CPERF.


To evaluate consultant and contractor performance, five generic criteria have been established for each group. These criteria apply to the majority of projects. A detailed listing of ratings within each of the five criteria can be found on the adjoining pages of the appropriate CPERF. A weight factor of 20 points is assigned to each of the five main criteria. On some consultant contracts, not all criteria are necessarily evaluated as they may not be applicable to the specific work being performed. Non-applicable evaluation criteria are assigned a weighing factor of zero and the SELECT system calculates the assessment on a percentage (pro-rated) basis. The Instruction and Additional Information Sheet(s) of the CPERF forms provide more explanation related to these criteria.

Performance Evaluation Criteria for Consultants

The following evaluation criteria have been established for evaluating consultant performance and apply to the majority of consultant contracts. Three criteria are optional, two are mandatory.

Table 1—Performance Scores—Consultant
Points Design—Conception Quality of Results Management TimeFootnote 2 Cost
0-5 Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
6-10 Not Satisfactory Not Satisfactory Not Satisfactory Late Not Satisfactory
11-16 Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory On Time Satisfactory
17-20 Superior Superior Superior Ahead of Schedule Superior

Performance Evaluation Criteria for Contractors

The following evaluation criteria have been established for evaluating contractor performance and apply to the majority of construction contracts. Two criteria are optional, three are mandatory.

Table 2—Performance Scoring—Construction/Maintenance
Points Quality of
TimeFootnote 2 Project
Health and
0-5 Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
6-10 Not
Late Not
Late Not
11-16 Satisfactory On Time Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
17-20 Superior Ahead of
Superior Superior Superior

When evaluating performance for work scheduled on a daily or weekly basis, (for example: for building cleaning/maintenance services), points should be deducted from the quality of workmanship criterion for those instances where a particular task is not performed. However, judgment and prudence must be well exercised. If a firm's employee was absent for a legitimate reason and the firm made a reasonable effort but was unable to perform the work, then an incomplete task may be ignored when completing the CPERF. If a firm is late in completing less frequently scheduled portions of work (monthly, quarterly, semi-annually) then points should be deducted from the time criterion. Again, good judgment must be exercised as the firm may appeal the rating given.

Delays caused by sub-contractors/consultants are the prime consultant/general contractor's responsibility. However, if the latter has taken all possible action to expedite the sub-consultant/sub-contractor's work, the effectiveness of this effort should be considered when evaluating the firm's performance.

The time criterion deals with the firm's performance up to the actual completion date. Typically, on small contracts the actual completion date is the date on which the work is 100% complete. However, where the contract provides for the issuance of an Interim Certificate of Completion, the completion date is the date shown on the Interim Certificate. In this case, the firm's performance on the clean-up of deficiencies, for example, should be taken into account under the criterion 'project management'.

Some questions to consider when assessing the 'time' criterion (not an exhaustive list):

Performance Evaluation Process


A CPERF is required to be completed for all real property contracts regardless of the dollar value. The evaluation supplements and reinforces standard written communications that a PM would initiate when confronted with unsatisfactory performance. It is essential that PMs gather supporting/reference material throughout the course of the project. The PM must diligently document all instances of performance other than 'satisfactory' or 'on time'. This is particularly important when performance is less than satisfactory. The success of the system depends upon the quality of each evaluation and the accuracy of its supporting material. The PM must strive for an evaluation that is based on facts directly related to the project and which is fair to both the firm and PSPC. The impact of scope creep on the schedule must not be underestimated.

During the execution of the work, the firm is to be notified immediately, in writing, if the work is not proceeding in a satisfactory manner. This notification would normally be further documented in job meeting records, or in the PM job diary. The firm can be directed to provide an action plan detailing a remedy to the situation. The PM would take notes and stay abreast of the overall performance of both the firm and the department as the job progresses. Quantification of documents is discretionary. One might assume that at least two warning letters are provided prior to corrective action being taken. PM's should contact RPC to devise contractual strategies.

Roles and Responsibilities

Project Manager

Note: When completion of a project is delayed by project circumstances, a CPERF may be completed prior to final completion if the final costs and the results of the performance review can be forecast with a high degree of confidence. Typically, this would occur at substantial completion of a project.

Contracting Officer

SELECT Business Manager

Contract Performance Review Committee

Contract Performance Evaluation Ratings and Consequences

(Opportunity Point—is a value of 1 added to a firm's record in SELECT (that is entered in a field called Opportunity Points). One Opportunity Point is added each time a firm is deemed to have received an opportunity to bid on a contract in SELECT
Overall Rating Recommended Action
85% or higher—(Superior) Reward
If an opportunity point was assigned in SELECT for the contract, the number of opportunity points assigned to the firm in SELECT is reduced by one. Contracts outside of SELECT do not have a mechanism for reward.
51% to 84%—(Satisfactory) No action. A standard letter is issued
30% to 50%Footnote 3
The letter sent with the CPERF to the firm indicates that the next time they receive 50% or less they may be suspended.
Less than 30%Footnote 4
Firm suspended to all rotational and Real Property public tenders for one year

Contract Performance Review Committee


Each regional office has a CPRC to manage the performance evaluation process. Since the SELECT system is utilized as a repository for the registration of individual local firms within each region, there is no need for the establishment of any permanent national committee for such purposes. However, in cases where one region is considering suspending a firm that has offices in another region(s), they are strongly advised to contact the applicable region(s), prior to the suspension, in order to ensure that one region's action is not undermining another region's position. An ad hoc inter-regional CPRC may need to be established in certain cases.


The CPRC advises and supports the RPB and RPC in the review of consultant and contractor performance in the delivery of real property projects. The Committee manages the day-to-day internal processing and reporting of consultant and contractor performance evaluations, the interface with industry including the rebuttal process and the establishment and enforcement of penalties levied against non-satisfactory consultant and contractor performance.

Committee Membership (National Capital Area sample)

Manager of Regional Operations and Commodity Management
Regional SELECT Business Manager
RPB representative:
Applicable Senior Project Manager
RPB representative:
Head, Claims Prevention and Management
RPCD representative:
Applicable Manager Construction/Maintenance/A&E
Defense Construction Canada:
Applicable Manager
The presence of various other participants may be required from time-to-time to provide advice, or to present or justify a particular position. Participants may include the PM, a firm's representative, other specialists from a wide variety of internal, professional or technical disciplines, industry representatives, client representative etc. Selection is at the discretion of the Chair and such participants may only attend that portion of the meeting required to present their opinion


The CPRC is primarily concerned with managing and addressing private sector performance on real property projects. The existence of this Committee provides for an effective separation between the contracting parties to help ensure impartiality, integrity and transparency. The Committee typically deals with the following issues:

Unsatisfactory performers

When reviewing a firm's performance, the firm's overall performance record on previous real property projects should be considered before determining the consequences of the evaluation. The firm's current project history should also be considered.

Superior performers

Superior performers are recognized by issuing a letter of acknowledgment. If the contract in question had resulted in the firm being assigned an opportunity point in SELECT then the firm may be rewarded by having this opportunity point removed. This will improve the likelihood of the firm being invited to bid on future rotational selections.


Rebuttals are reviewed with a view to obtaining agreement on the performance of the firm. This will usually involve receiving input from the PM as well as the firm. If disagreement remains, the firm's views are retained on file. Where appropriate, the final CPERF ratings and consequences are to be recorded in the SELECT system. The rating and consequences are also entered into the firm's hard-copy record as well as into the project and contract files.


The CPERF contains "protected" information and cannot be disclosed to the public, including other firms, unless the firm concerned agrees in writing to the release of the information. The completed CPERF can be made available to officials of other government departments on a "protected" basis. The completed CPERF must always be provided to the firm being evaluated.


Suspension letters are issued identifying the reasons why the firms are suspended, the duration of the suspension, and the consequences of being suspended. It is important to ensure that the suspended firms are not awarded any real property contracts, regardless of value, during the suspension period.


Once a suspension period has elapsed a firm wishing to be considered for rotational selections must re-apply to SELECT. In the case of construction or maintenance firms, references provided in the new application must be for contracts completed since the start of the suspension period.

Meeting Location and Frequency

Meetings are held on an ad hoc basis at the call of the Chairperson



Date modified: