INFRASTRUCTURE ONTARIO VENDOR PERFORMANCE PROGRAM

Transcription

1 INFRASTRUCTURE ONTARIO VENDOR PERFORMANCE PROGRAM

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preamble Definitions Purpose Evaluation of Vendor Performance Vendor Performance Scorecard Inclusion in Request Documents Timing of Performance Review Performance Ratings and Completion of Scorecard Issuance of Scorecard Review of Scorecard No Response to Scorecard Application of Vendor Performance Rating Procurement Evaluation Managing and Accessing Vendor Performance Information Application of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ( FIPPA ) Application of the Open Data Directive Management of Vendor Performance Warning Letter Infraction Report Suspension Suspension Process Length of Suspension Circumstances In Which a Vendor May Receive a Notice of Suspension Contents in the Notice of Suspension Review of Suspension IO Suspension List Request for Reinstatement of Vendor References Effective Date Amendment Date LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A VENDOR PERFORMANCE SCORING - CONSULTANT APPENDIX B VENDOR PERFORMANCE SCORING - CONTRACTOR APPENDIX C VENDOR PERFORMANCE SCORING - STUDY APPENDIX D SAMPLE CALCULATIONS AND FORMULAS APPENDIX E WARNING LETTER APPENDIX F INFRACTION REPORT APPENDIX G NOTICE OF INFRACTION APPENDIX H SUSPENSION LETTER

3 Preamble Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation s ( IO or Infrastructure Ontario ) Real Estate Vendor Performance Program ( Program ) sets out minimum policy requirements for monitoring, evaluating and recording vendor performance. The Program is to be administered in accordance with the Infrastructure Ontario Procurement Policy and procurement procedures. 1. Definitions Business Unit means a program function within IO (e.g., Project Services, Professional Services, etc.) authorized to conduct Vendor performance assessments. Contract means the aggregate of (a) the executed agreement including any schedules; (b) the procurement document, including any addenda; (c) the successful proposal; and (d) any amendments executed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, which will be entered by IO and Vendor or by a Service Provider and Vendor at the end of the procurement process. Consultant means a registered or licensed professional engineer, architect, or other specialist engaged directly by IO or a Service Provider. Contractor means a person or entity contracted by IO or a Service Provider to perform some or all of total construction and related services required under the Contract. Global Average means the assigned rating based on the average of all VPRs from the previous twelve (12) months if the Vendor does not have a Vendor Performance Scorecard completed within the previous two (2) year period. Infraction Report means the official correspondence issued to the Vendor upon committing any infraction set out in Section 6.2. Key Performance Indicators measure Vendor and/or Services Providers performance in delivering services. Legal Department means the IO department who shall be consulted prior to issuing a Vendor a Suspension Letter. Procurement Policy means the IO policy which applies to the procurement of all goods and services (including construction, non-consulting services, consulting services and information technology) procured by IO, either on its own behalf or on behalf of an entity other than IO. Procurement Department means the IO Business Unit who has the responsibility to manage procurement and the supply chain for IO. 1

4 Project Manager means an individual in a Business Unit within IO, or a representative of an IO Service Provider, who is responsible for administering the Program, responsible for managing a Contract, authorized to conduct Vendor performance assessment. Project Supervisor means individual in the Business Unit within IO, or a representative of an IO Service Provider, who is responsible for overseeing the Project Manager s work and has the authority to review Vendor performance assessments. Request Documents means the documents that form the solicitations used to procure goods and/or services for IO. Service Provider means IO s Property and Land Management Service Provider (PLMSP), an IO Project Management Service Provider (PMSP) or an IO Construction Manager or a Vendor who provides operational support to IO and is authorized to conduct Vendor performance assessments pursuant to its Contract with IO, and whose performance will also be assessed and evaluated by IO in accordance with this Program. Suspension Letter means the official correspondence issued to a Vendor should any of the circumstances outlined in Section 7.3 arise. Vendor means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association or related person as defined in the Ontario Business Corporations Act, that provides any goods (e.g. equipment), service (i.e. consulting or non-consulting), and/or construction activity to IO or an IO project, and has a contract with IO or with a Service Provider. Vendor Performance Coordinator or VPC means the individual in IO s Procurement Department who is the main point of contact for the Program. Vendor Performance Rating or VPR is the average of all of a Vendor s Performance Scorecards over a two (2) year period. If the Vendor does not have a Scorecard for each of the two (2) preceding years, its Vendor Performance Rating will be the Global Average. Vendor Performance Scorecard or Scorecard or VPS means a report generated in connection with IO s Vendor Performance Program, which may be amended or replaced from time to time. Warning Letter means the official correspondence issued to a Vendor upon committing any of the infractions outlined in Section Purpose The purpose of the Program is to monitor, evaluate and record the performance of Vendors within IO s supply chain to ensure the responsible management of IO contracts. The objectives of this Program are to: 2

5 1) Establish an objective standardized performance evaluation; 2) Establish clear expectations and benchmarks that encourage Vendor responsibility and accountability; 3) Promote effective Vendor performance management, resulting in improved communication between IO and/or Service Providers and Vendors; 4) Provide tools to manage Vendors; 5) Encourage continuous Vendor performance improvement through appropriate corrective action; 6) Establish a process for applying appropriate penalties to address shortfalls in Vendor performance; and 7) Outline reasons for Vendor suspension from receiving consideration from future contracts. Vendor performance trends will be assessed over both the short and long term to provide Vendors with feedback to facilitate continuous improvements. Feedback from IO and/or Service Provider to the Vendor will be given through a written evaluation Vendor Performance Scorecard (as described below). Vendor Performance Scorecards will be used to assist Project Managers in considering past performance in the sourcing stages of new contracts, giving high performing Vendors a more competitive position when pursuing future work with IO and/or a Service Provider. 3. Evaluation of Vendor Performance 3.1 Vendor Performance Scorecard The Vendor Performance Scorecard is the document produced to report a Vendor s or Service Provider s performance and is based on the criteria and metrics outlined in Appendices A, B, and C. The Scorecard is used to ensure an objective assessment of a Vendor s or Service Provider s performance, by applying established evaluation criteria aligned with IO s business goals. During the term of a Contract, IO and/or Service Provider will document all incidents of deficient performance and/or infractions by way of minutes of meetings, notices, warnings, and all related communications, which may later be used to support a Scorecard evaluation. 3.2 Inclusion in Request Documents Request Documents must include a reference to the evaluation requirements of this Program with a copy of the Scorecard. The Contract must outline the requirements of this Program that will be used to evaluate the Vendor s performance. 3.3 Timing of Performance Review 3

6 A VPS will be completed by IO and/or the Service Provider, at a minimum at the end of the Contract or, at the end of the Contract and upon completion of specific deliverables as set out therein. The resulting performance review may involve senior stakeholders from the Vendor, IO, and/or Service Provider who will review: Contract Key Performance Indicators, if applicable; financial results; any issues and/or disputes of IO concern, including relevant litigation history; alignment of Vendor performance with IO goals and objectives for the remaining term of Contract; general business trends; and the working relationship between IO and/or Service Provider and Vendor. 3.4 Performance Ratings and Completion of Scorecard The Vendor s performance will be rated based on the Project Manager s responses to the criteria questions outlined in Appendices A, B, and C. Each section will contain comments derived from the responses and serve as the most probative indicators of the Vendor s performance. Additionally, each section of the VPS, as well as the final VPS score, is represented by a score out of five. These scores are intended to be a generalized summary of the Vendor s performance and not a substantive comment. Categorically failed to meet expectations. Consistently failed to meet expectations. Frequently failed to meet expectations. Occasionally failed to meet expectations. Rarely failed to meet expectations. Meets expectations The score of five is assigned when there were no performance issues and the Vendor has met the Contract requirements. The score of four is assigned when there were performance issues that were minor in frequency and/or material impact. The score of three is assigned when there were performance issues that were moderate in frequency and/or material impact. The score of two is assigned when there were performance issues which were sufficiently severe so as to require additional (IO/PMSP) oversight and/or intervention in order to ensure that Contract requirements were met. 4

7 The score of one is assigned when there were performance issues which were sufficiently severe so as to require additional (IO/PMSP) oversight and/or intervention and yet, despite such remedial actions, the achievement of Contract requirements were consistently put in jeopardy. The score of zero is assigned when there were performance issues which were sufficiently severe so as to require additional (IO/PMSP) oversight and/or intervention and yet, despite such remedial actions, achievement of Contract requirements were not met. 3.5 Issuance of Scorecard The Project Manager will provide a completed draft Scorecard to the VPC for review and validation as necessary. IO may liaise with its customers, Vendor and/or Service Provider and/or any other relevant party, to review or confirm evaluation details prior to the Scorecard being issued to the Vendor. 3.6 Review of Scorecard If the Vendor disagrees with the factual statements within a Scorecard it may request a review by the Project Manager. Such requests must be made to the Project Manager in writing within ten (10) business days of receiving a Scorecard, and must consist of substantiated facts and supporting documentation. The Project Manager will review the Vendor s written disagreement and supporting documentation and may, in their sole discretion, meet with the Vendor to discuss the matter. The Project Manager will then issue a written response to confirm or modify the Scorecard. The Scorecard made by the Project Manager in response to a Vendor s request for review will be final. 3.7 No Response to Scorecard If the Vendor does not respond to the Scorecard within the ten (10) business day period as set out in Section 3.6, the Vendor will be deemed to have accepted the Scorecard and the Scorecard will be final. 4. Application of Vendor Performance Rating A Vendor s VPR will be applied in accordance with the Program and as stated in the Request Documents. Sample calculations and formulas are included in Appendix D. Only final Scorecards are used to calculate the VPR. A Scorecard is considered by IO to be final upon the following: 5

8 1) The Vendor has not raised concern(s) about its evaluation within the applicable time period of receiving the completed Scorecard (as per Section 3.8); or 2) At such other time when IO considers the performance review process complete. Where the Vendor is a partnership/joint venture/consortium, the average of the rating of each party participating as a Vendor will be applied. In this case, the rating applied to the Vendor will be the average of the VPRs of all entities which comprise the Vendor. 4.1 Procurement Evaluation VPRs will be applied by IO or Service Provider during the evaluation stage of IO procurements when rating submissions. Reference to the rated criteria that pertain to Vendor performance must be clearly outlined in the Request Documents to ensure that Vendors understand how their VPR will be used and their submission evaluated. The minimum weight given to a Vendor s rating is fifteen (15%) percent of the total score for the procurement. Where Business Unit or Service Provider has an approved business case, a different weighting may be applied, but cannot exceed a value greater than twenty-five (25%) percent of the total score. A Business Unit and/or Service Provider seeking to apply a weighting greater than fifteen (15%) percent to VPR in a procurement evaluation, must first obtain written approval through the Vendor Performance Coordinator. The VPR will only be used in the evaluation stage of a procurement for those submissions that have qualified (passed mandatory and technical evaluation stages) as set out in the Request Documents, and only after all other rated criteria have been evaluated. VPRs will only be used in the evaluation of Request Documents for procurements where the Contract price exceeds $100,000. For procurements valued at or less than $100,000, VPRs will only be applied upon request by the Business Unit. 5. Managing and Accessing Vendor Performance Information The VPC is responsible for collecting, managing, and maintaining Vendor performance information, records, and other documents to ensure the integrity and security of the information. IO will treat all Vendor information and documents in a confidential manner; however, such information and documents may be shared within IO and Service Providers contracting with Vendors. 5.1 Application of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ( FIPPA ) Vendor information, records, and other documents are subject to the provisions of the FIPPA. When IO receives an access request pursuant to FIPPA, for information, records 6

9 or other documents that involve the interests of a Vendor, IO will provide written notice of such request to the Vendor and seek its comments regarding disclosure. Where IO issues an access decision or is ordered by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario ( IPC ) to disclose any information, records or other documents relevant to the Contract or Vendor, IO will provide the Vendor with written notice. The Vendor will be provided with an opportunity to make representations directly to the IPC regarding disclosure of the information, records or other documents. 5.2 Application of the Open Data Directive Any and all information and documents the Vendor provides to a Requestor from time to time, is subject to and may be released pursuant to the provisions of the Open Data Directive. 6. Management of Vendor Performance If a Vendor deficiently performs during the term of its Contract, IO and/or Service Provider will address the deficiencies with the Vendor. It is essential for the Project Manager to maintain all supporting documentation as it will form an essential part of the Vendor s information on record. Notification of deficient performance can be based on negative feedback that IO and/or its Service Providers have received from their client(s), that is, a ministry or other entity that ultimately benefit from the project or work performed by the Vendor. Prompt notification of deficient performance provides the Vendor with an opportunity to address and improve performance. A Warning Letter or Infraction Report will be issued to a Vendor for deficient performance. These documents will identify the Vendor s contravention or breach of a contractual obligation, required corrective action, and the consequences if a Vendor fails to take corrective action. Vendors may be held responsible for the performance of their sub-contractors, and a Vendor may receive a Warning Letter or Infraction Report for deficient performance by its sub-contractors. 6.1 Warning Letter The Project Manager may issue a Warning Letter and may do so without consulting the Procurement Department. The Warning Letter may be issued for any of the following infractions: 1) Failure to comply with established communication protocols; 2) Failure to comply with established site protocols pertaining to access, working hours, deliveries, notices, safety, etc.; 3) Inaccurate invoicing and budgets; 4) Failure to report a worksite incident to the Project Manager in a timely manner; 7

10 5) Failure to update Schedules as per contract; or 6) Other minor performance deficiencies, which in the opinion of the Project Manager, affect or could affect the Vendor s ability to complete the project successfully. Within five (5) business days of the issuance of a Warning Letter, the Vendor may submit in writing a request for review to the Project Supervisor. This request for review should identify substantial and reasonable grounds for review with the supporting documentation. The Project Supervisor will investigate the request for the review of the Warning Letter, and will issue a decision. The Project Supervisor s decision is final. A template Warning Letter is found in Appendix E No Response to Warning Letter If the Vendor does not respond to the Warning Letter, within the five (5) day period, the Warning letter will be considered final and an Infraction Report may be issued Failure to Address Deficient Performance If the Vendor fails to rectify the deficiencies outlined in the Warning Letter in the timeline agreed to by the parties, the Project Manager may issue an Infraction Report. 6.2 Infraction Report In consultation with the Procurement Department, the Project Manager may issue an Infraction Report for the following infractions: 1) Failure to manage and coordinate subcontractors/consultants; 2) Failure to provide milestone schedules per the Contract documents; 3) Failure to submit deliverables such as O & M manuals, as-builts, reports, minutes of meetings, changes, shop drawings, etc. as per the Contract. 4) Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the Contract; 5) Failure to comply with Ministry of Labour and / or Occupational Health and Safety Act requirements; 6) Delayed delivery / failure to complete the project or key deliverables of the Contract in a timely and effective manner; 7) Failure to comply with the Environmental Protection Act requirements; 8) Failure to address and rectify statement of claim or notices of construction lien filed against IO and/or the Service Provider and/or failure to comply with Construction Lien Act requirements; 9) Registration of any certificates of pending litigation or any other encumbrances on title; 11) Failure to address any warranty claims in a timely manner; 12) Failure to meet any other quality standards set out in the Contract; and 8

11 13) Other major performance deficiencies which, in the opinion of the Project Manager, are affecting or could affect the Vendors ability to complete the project successfully. Within ten (10) business days of the issuance of an Infraction Report, the Vendor may submit in writing a request for review to the Project Supervisor. This request for review should identify substantial and reasonable grounds for review with the supporting documentation. The Project Supervisor will investigate the request for the review of the Infraction Report, and will issue a decision. The Project Supervisor s decision is final. A template Infraction Report and template Notice of Infraction Report can be found in Appendices F and G, respectively No Response to Infraction Report If the Vendor does not respond to the Infraction Report, within the ten (10) day period, the Infraction Report will be considered final Scoring a Vendor with an Infraction Report Upon correction of the deficienc(ies) noted in the Infraction Report to the satisfaction of the Project Manager the Vendor will receive a maximum score of three (3) for the related item on the Vendors subsequent Scorecard. Failure to correct the deficiencies outlined in the Infraction Report to the Project Manager s satisfaction will result in the Vendor receiving a maximum score of one (1) for the related item on the Vendor s subsequent Scorecard. 7. Suspension IO may, in its sole discretion, suspend a Vendor from submitting proposals/bids in response to IO or Service Provider solicitations and from contracting with IO and/or Service Providers. A template Notice of Suspension letter is found in Appendix H. 7.1 Suspension Process The decision to suspend a Vendor is made by the SVP of Procurement, as recommended by the Project Supervisor in accordance with the following process: 1) Review of Corroborating Evidence: A Project Manager may request that the Project Supervisor review and examine documented evidence to determine whether a suspension of a Vendor is warranted under the circumstances. 2) Consultation with IO Legal Department: IO Legal Department shall be consulted then IO, in consultation with the Project Supervisor, will decide whether to impose a suspension on the Vendor. 9

12 7.2 Length of Suspension The factual circumstances, gravity of the deficient performance and/or wrongdoing committed will directly impact the severity of consequences applied, including the length of the suspension period, which may be for a period of up to and including two (2) years. 7.3 Circumstances In Which a Vendor May Receive a Notice of Suspension A Notice of Suspension may be issued under certain circumstances which include, but are not limited to: 1) the Vendor received a rating of one (1) on a Vendor Performance Scorecard; 2) the Vendor received an overall Scorecard rating of two (2) or lower on two (2) or more IO Scorecards within a two (2) year period; 3) the Vendor s continued performance will significantly jeopardize the completion of Contract deliverable(s); or 4) previous deficient performance that resulted in the issuance of an Infraction Report was either not corrected or was repeated and/or jeopardized the completion of a Contract; or 5) any other circumstances that may warrant suspension, as determined by IO in its sole discretion. 7.4 Contents in the Notice of Suspension The Notice of Suspension will contain the following information: 1) A statement that the Vendor cannot perform work directly or indirectly for IO; 2) duration of the suspension period which commences on the date indicated in the notice; 3) the reasons for suspension; and 4) the reinstatement process following suspension. 7.5 Review of Suspension If the Vendor disagrees with the factual merit of its suspension, such disagreement must be raised in writing to the Vendor Performance Coordinator within fifteen (15) business days of receiving the Notice of Suspension and must consist of substantiated facts and supporting documentation. If IO does not receive any such response from the Vendor, the Vendor will be deemed to have no disagreement with the suspension. Upon receipt of the Vendor s written disagreement, the SVP of Procurement will review the matter and make a decision to confirm the suspension, modify its terms, or withdraw 10

13 it altogether. Meeting with the Vendor to review their suspension will be at the IO s sole discretion. The SVP of Procurement s decision is final and will be supplied to the Vendor in the form of a written response and by way of the Vendor Performance Coordinator, within a reasonable time period depending on the nature of the concerns identified by the Vendor. 7.6 IO Suspension List The VPC will maintain IO s electronic Vendor suspension list and is responsible for managing and updating the Vendor suspension list for IO. Vendors on the Vendor suspension list will not be eligible to submit a proposal/bid or be able to be awarded any new projects/contracts during the suspension period. The Procurement Department will review the Vendor suspension list in advance of each prequalification or invitational procurement to ensure that a suspended Vendor does not prequalify for or bid on an IO Contract. When submissions are received from an open IO procurement, the Procurement Department will review the Vendor suspension list to ensure that a suspended Vendor s submission is not considered or evaluated. Any submission received from a Vendor on the Vendor suspension list will be returned unopened. Upon changes to the list, Service Providers will receive an updated Vendor suspension list from the VPC so they can ensure that a suspended Vendor is not invited to bid on an IO contract or that a suspended Vendor s submission is considered or evaluated. 7.7 Request for Reinstatement of Vendor Upon request from a suspended Vendor, IO, in its sole discretion, may consider early reinstatement. Early reinstatement would permit the Vendor to bid on work for IO directly or indirectly as a sub-contractor. A suspended Vendor is provided one (1) opportunity anytime during the suspension period to make such request, which must be in writing and submitted to IO s VPC. It is recommended that a request for reinstatement include the following information: 1) How the Vendor has addressed the issues identified in the notice of suspension; and 2) An outlining of any and all corrective action(s) the Vendor has taken to ensure that similar deficient performance and/or wrongdoing will not recur. The SVP of Procurement at IO shall review the request and may consult with the any parties deemed necessary prior to making decision to confirm, modify the terms or withdraw the suspension. Any decision made by the SVP of Procurement is final. 11

14 The Vendor will be notified, in writing, of any early reinstatement and The VPC will update IO s Vendor suspension list accordingly. If early reinstatement does not occur, the Vendor will be reinstated upon expiry of the suspension period as set out in the Notice of Suspension. Upon reinstatement, the rating of a reinstated Vendor shall be the Global Average. 8. References Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act R.S.O.1990,c.F-31, as amended; Construction Lien Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30, as amended; Occupational Health and Safety Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER O.1, as amended; Environmental Protection Act R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended Ontario Business Corporations Act R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, as amended; Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation Procurement Policy; Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation Policy Regarding Eligibility of a Third Party Engaged in Litigation; Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation s Delegations of Authority; and Open Data Directive. 9. Effective Date This Vendor Performance Program is effective as of January 01, Amendment Date [INSERT DATE] 12

15 APPENDIX A Vendor Performance Scoring Consultant Scoring Legend 0 - Categorically failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of zero is assigned when there were performance issues which were sufficiently severe so as to require additional (IO/PMSP) oversight and/or intervention and yet, despite such remedial actions, achievement of Contract requirements were not met. 1 - Consistently failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of one is assigned when there were performance issues which were sufficiently severe so as to require additional (IO/PMSP) oversight and/or intervention and yet, despite such remedial actions, the achievement of Contract requirements were consistently put in jeopardy. 2 - Frequently failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of two is assigned when there were performance issues which were sufficiently severe so as to require additional (IO/PMSP) oversight and/or intervention in order to ensure that Contract requirements were met. 3 - Occasionally failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of three is assigned when there were performance issues that were moderate in frequency and/or material impact. 4 - Rarely failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of four is assigned when there were performance issues that were minor in frequency and/or material impact. 5 - Meets expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of five is assigned when there were no performance issues and the Vendor has met the Contract requirements. Questions Related to Infraction Reports A) Was the Consultant issued an Infraction Report during the project? (If yes, a maximum score of three is assigned to the relevant area) B) Were the deficiencies outlined within the Infraction Report(s) satisfactorily corrected? (If no, a score of one is automatically assigned to the relevant area)

16 Scoring Criteria - Consultant 1.0 Quality Total Weight 40% 1.1 Contract Compliance i. Did the Consultant prepare and design construction documents consistent with the requirements of the project, taking consideration all applicable IO standards? ii. Was the Consultant prompt at gathering information and working with stakeholders to facilitate design and tender development in accordance with the schedule? iii. Was the Consultant proactive in its review of statutes, regulations, codes, and by-laws affecting the project and, where necessary, dealt with the appropriate jurisdiction authority in a timely manner to obtain the required consents, approvals, licenses, and permits? iv. Did the Consultant submit all contractual deliverable obligations in a timely manner as required by the contract? 1.2 Cost Management i. Did the Consultant provide timely and accurate cost estimates? ii. Did the Consultant review and negotiate for fair and reasonable costing relating to change orders within a timely manner? iii. Did the Consultant provide accurate and complete review of progress billing within ten calendar days after the receipt of the application for payment and issue or reject the certificate for payment to facilitate timely payment to the contractor? iv. Did the Consultant produce complete, accurate, and coordinated bid and construction documents resulting in limited design related change orders? 1.3 Schedule i. Was the Consultant prompt and effective in addressing customer requests and incorporating comments and or requested changes into the documents? ii. Did the Consultant meet the time commitments set out for each milestone in the agreed project schedule? iii. Did the Consultant provide timely updates regarding milestone completion? iv. Did the Consultant cause any delay to the overall project? 2.0 Partnership Total Weight 40% 2.1 General Management i. Was the continuity of staff assignments, as well as their experience and project knowledge, maintained throughout the project regardless of any possible replacements?

17 ii. Did the Consultant communicate effectively throughout the project and follow defined project specific communications protocols? iii. Did the Consultant conduct themselves in a professional and collaborative manner? iv. Did the Consultant effectively manage sub-consultants and coordinate with other consultants independently procured by the client? v. Did the Consultant take a positive approach to resolving conflict during the project? vi. Did the Consultant provide prompt response to project related queries? vii. Did the Consultant provide their input and identify risks that could negatively impact the project delivery and provide an appropriate mitigation strategy? 2.2 Design i. In a timely manner, did the Consultant propose alternative solutions and options to better meet the requirements of the client? ii. In a timely manner, did the Consultant advise the client of any anticipated cost and schedule impacts due to the agreed upon project scope? iii. Did the Consultant assist the Service Provider in facilitating decision making related to alternative design options in a timely manner? 2.3 Construction i. Did the Consultant provide general review as set out in the contract including the issuance of complete reports after all visits? ii. Was the Consultant proactive in terms of issue identification and problem resolution? iii. Was the Consultant available and, with reasonable promptness, provide additional instructions to the contractor? iv. Did the Consultant work collaboratively with the contractor and Service Provider? v. Did the Consultant complete regular progress reviews through the construction? vi. Did the Consultant prepare change notices and change order for required approvals in a timely manner? 2.4 Close Out i. Did the Consultant ensure, in a timely manner, the accuracy and quality of Contractor close out submittals. (Including As-Built Drawings, Technical Reports, O&M Manuals etc.)? ii. Were the record drawings submitted in accordance to Infrastructure Ontario standards within the contract prescribed timeframe? iii. Did the Consultant promptly submit accurate final invoices following completion of services? 3.0 Value for Money Total Weight 20% i. Did the Consultant identify innovative ideas and provide advice that resulted in greater value for money?

18 ii. iii. iv. Was the Consultant punctual and prepared for all meetings? Did the Consultant submit complete and fair pricing for proposed changes to services? Did the assigned team, including sub-consultants, have the knowledge and experience required for the project?

19 APPENDIX B Vendor Performance Scoring - Contractor Scoring Legend 0 - Categorically failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of zero is assigned when there were performance issues which were sufficiently severe so as to require additional (IO/PMSP) oversight and/or intervention and yet, despite such remedial actions, achievement of Contract requirements were not met. 1 - Consistently failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of one is assigned when there were performance issues which were sufficiently severe so as to require additional (IO/PMSP) oversight and/or intervention and yet, despite such remedial actions, the achievement of Contract requirements were consistently put in jeopardy. 2 - Frequently failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of two is assigned when there were performance issues which were sufficiently severe so as to require additional (IO/PMSP) oversight and/or intervention in order to ensure that Contract requirements were met. 3 - Occasionally failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of three is assigned when there were performance issues that were moderate in frequency and/or material impact. 4 - Rarely failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of four is assigned when there were performance issues that were minor in frequency and/or material impact. 5 - Meets expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of five is assigned when there were no performance issues and the Vendor has met the Contract requirements. Questions Related to Infraction Reports A) Was the Consultant issued an Infraction Report during the project? (If yes, a maximum score of three is assigned to the relevant area) B) Were the deficiencies outlined within the Infraction Report(s) satisfactorily corrected? (If no, a score of one is automatically assigned to the relevant area)

20 Scoring Criteria - Contractor 1.0 Contract Compliance Total Weight 10% i. Did the Contractor prepare design and construction documents consistent with the requirements of the project, taking into consideration all applicable IO standards? ii. Was the Contractor prompt at gathering information and working with stakeholders to facilitate design and tender development in accordance with the contract schedule? iii. Was the Contractor proactive in its review of statutes, regulations, codes, and by-laws affecting the project and, where necessary, dealing with the appropriate jurisdiction authority in a timely manner to obtain the required consents, approvals, licenses and permits? iv. Did the Contractor submit all contractual deliverable obligations in a timely manner? 2.0 Cost Control Total Weight 10% i. Did the Contractor provide timely and accurate cost estimates? ii. Did the Contractor review and negotiate for fair and reasonable costing relating to change orders within a timely manner? iii. Did the Contractor provide an accurate and complete review of progress billing within ten calendar days after the receipt of the application for payment and issue or reject the certificate for payment to facilitate timely payment to the contractor? iv. Did the Contractor produce complete, accurate, and coordinated bid and construction documents resulting in limited design related change orders? 3.0 Communication Total Weight 10% i. Did the Contractor prepare and distribute accurate meeting minutes within the prescribed timeframe of the meeting? ii. Did the Contractor foster collaborate engagement with stakeholders, consultants and the Service Provider and take a positive approach to resolving conflict? iii. Did the Contractor communicate effectively throughout the project and follow defined project specific communication protocols? iv. Did the Contractor conduct themselves in a professional and collaborative manner? v. Did the Contractor provide their input and identify risks that could negatively impact project delivery and offer an appropriate risk mitigation strategy? vi. Was the Contractor proactive in communicating, identifying, and resolving problems? 4.0 Schedule Total Weight 15%

21 i. Was the Contractor prompt and effective in addressing customer requests and incorporating comments and/or requested changes into the documents? ii. Did the Contractor meet the time commitments set out for each milestone in the project schedule? iii. Did the Contractor s actions cause any delay to the overall project? iv. Did the Contractor meet project milestones? v. Did the Contractor provide timely updates regarding milestone completion? vi. Did the Contractor provide reasonable notification for tests, inspections, and approvals? vii. Did the Contractor mobilize promptly following award? viii. Did the Contractor submit a regularly updated construction schedule prepared with the appropriate level of detail in accordance with the requirements of the contract? 5.0 General Management Total Weight 20% i. Did the Contractor demonstrate effort, ability, and success in managing sub trades and vendors procured independently by the client and/or demonstrate overall project performance management? ii. Did the Contractor respect and follow site specific protocols for access and security thereby minimizing disruption to ongoing customer operations? iii. Did the project manager perform as expected and have the required knowledge management skills and experience to run project of this size and complexity? iv. Did the site supervisor perform as expected and have the required knowledge management skills and experience to run the project of this size and complexity? v. Was the Contractor prompt and effective at correcting defective work as identified by the consultant throughout the project? vi. Was the continuity of staff assignments maintained throughout the project regardless of any possible staff replacements? vii. When performance issues were identified, did the Contractor demonstrate measurable continuous improvement over the term of the contract? 6.0 Close Out Total Weight 15% i. Did the Contractor review and complete accurate close out submittals in a timely manner? (Including As-Built Drawings, Technical Reports, O&M Manuals, etc.) ii. Were the record and drawings submitted in accordance Infrastructure Ontario standards within the contract prescribed timeframe? iii. Did the Contractor promptly submit accurate final invoices following completion of services? 7.0 Health and Safety Total Weight 20% i. Did the Contractor receive any notices or violations from the Ministry of Labor regarding health and safety concerns?

22 ii. Did the Contractor comply with the rules, regulations, and practices required by applicable health and safety legislation? iii. If there were health and safety incidents, did the Contractor deal with them effectively, preparing and submitting the required documentation to the project manager in a timely manner? iv. Did the Contractor maintain job site cleanliness in accordance with contract requirements? v. Did the Contractor maintain a safe separation and identification (signage) of their work areas? vi. Did the Contractor deal with hazardous materials as specified under the contract?

23 APPENDIX C Vendor Performance Scorecard Study Scoring Legend 0 - Categorically failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of zero is assigned when there were performance issues which were sufficiently severe so as to require additional (IO/PMSP) oversight and/or intervention and yet, despite such remedial actions, achievement of Contract requirements were not met. 1 - Consistently failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of one is assigned when there were performance issues which were sufficiently severe so as to require additional (IO/PMSP) oversight and/or intervention and yet, despite such remedial actions, the achievement of Contract requirements were consistently put in jeopardy. 2 - Frequently failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of two is assigned when there were performance issues which were sufficiently severe so as to require additional (IO/PMSP) oversight and/or intervention in order to ensure that Contract requirements were met. 3 - Occasionally failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of three is assigned when there were performance issues that were moderate in frequency and/or material impact. 4 - Rarely failed to meet expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of four is assigned when there were performance issues that were minor in frequency and/or material impact. 5 - Meets expectations outlined by the Contract requirements. The score of five is assigned when there were no performance issues and the Vendor has met the Contract requirements. Questions Related to Infraction Reports A) Was the Consultant issued an Infraction Report during the project? (If yes, a maximum score of three is assigned to the relevant area) B) Were the deficiencies outlined within the Infraction Report(s) satisfactorily corrected? (If no, a maximum score of one is automatically assigned to the relevant area)

24 Scoring Criteria - Study 1.0 Quality Total Weight 40% 1.1 Contract Compliance i. Was the Consultant's performance in accordance with the contract/project specifications and compliant with applicable IO standards (e.g. Building Sustainability Standards, Accessibility, etc.). ii. Did the Consultant prepare construction documents consistent with the requirements of the project and take into consideration all applicable IO standards? iii. iv. Was the Consultant prompt at gathering information during the investigation stage? Was the Consultant prompt and effective at addressing client requests and incorporating requested changes into the tender documents? v. Was the Consultant proactive in its review of statutes, regulations, codes, and bylaws affecting the project and, where necessary, dealt with the appropriate jurisdiction authority in a timely manner to obtain the required consents, approvals, licenses and permits? vi. 1.2 Schedule Did the Consultant submit all contractual deliverable obligations (report submissions) in a timely manner? i. Was the Consultant prompt and effective in addressing customer requests and incorporating comments and/or requested changes into the documents? ii. Did the Consultant meet the time commitments set out for each milestone in the agreed project schedule? iii. Did the Consultant provide timely updates regarding milestone completion? iv. Did the Consultant s actions cause delay to the overall project? 2.0 Partnership Total Weight 40% 2.1 General Management i. Was continuity of staff assignments, as well as their experience and project knowledge, maintained throughout the project regardless of any possible replacements? ii. Did the Consultant communicate effectively throughout the project and follow defined project specific communications protocols? iii. iv. 2.2 Study Did the Consultant conduct themselves in a professional and collaborative manner? Did the Consultant effectively manage sub-consultants and coordinate with other consultants independently procured by the client? i. Did the Consultant propose reasonable options that met the needs of the Client? ii. Did the Consultant assist the Service Provider in facilitating the decision making relating to alternative options?

25 iii. Did the final product meet the client s requirements to facilitate future planning? iv. Was the report laid out in accordance with the prescribed format in an organized fashion and easily understood? v. Are the study contents sufficient to support and substantiate final recommendations/ conclusions? vi. Did the Consultant submit accurate final invoices promptly following the completion of services? 3.0 Value for Money Total Weight 20% i. Did the Consultant identify innovative ideas and provide advice that resulted in greater value for money? ii. Was the Consultant punctual and prepared for all meetings? iii. Did the Consultant submit complete and fair pricing for proposed changes to services? iv. Did the assigned team, including subcontractors, have necessary knowledge and experience required for the project?

26 APPENDIX D Sample Calculations / Formulas A.1. Weighted Average Application A VPR will be based on the average over a two year period. The equation for a VPR calculated over a two (2) year period will be as follows: VPR = 1(Avg. Yr. 1) + 2(Avg. Yr. 2) 3 Avg. Yr.1 = Average of all Scorecards in 12 months prior to Year 2 Avg. Yr.2 = Average of all Scorecards within the most recent 12 months If a Vendor does not have a VPS in one of the two years, the VPR will be based on the average VPR for the year which Scorecards are available. Example of a VPR calculation over two (2) years: Year 1 Rating x 1 4 x 1 = 4 (2015) Year 2 Rating x 2 3 x 2 = 6 (2016) Average Rating Total of 2 years / by 3 10 / 3 = 3.33 VPR 3.33 The VPR of a Vendor who has a recorded Scorecard for year two (2) but not year one (1): Year 1 Rating x 1 0 (2014) Year 2 Rating x 2 3 x 2 = 6 (2015) Average Rating 6 / 2 = 3.00 VPR 3.00 The VPR of a Vendor who has a recorded Scorecard for example year one (1) but not year two (2): Year 1 Rating x 1 2 x 1 = 2 (2016) Year 2 Rating x 2 0 (2017) Average Rating 2 / 1 = 2.00 VPR 2.00 A.2. VPR Application in Solicitation Scoring The VPR can be applied in a Request for Qualification, Tender, Proposal or Services. If the option is to use the VPR at the Request for Qualification stage the VPR will form part of technical qualification of the Vendor. If the option is to use the VPR at the Request for Proposal stage the contract award to the successful proponent will be based on all of the Rated Criteria including technical, price and the VPR.

27 A.2.1. Table A - Example of weights for rated criteria RFP without a VPR An example of evaluated weights for rated criteria in a Request for Proposal document without a VPR is set out in Table A below: Table A Rated Criteria Weights TECHNICAL 75% - Experience & Qualifications of Team Lead 15% - Experience & Qualifications of Team 15% - Roles & Responsibilities of Team Members 15% - Experience in Similar Project Complexity 15% - Methodology / Approach to Project 15% FINANCIAL (bid/rate) 25% Total % A.2.2. Table B Example of weights for rated criteria (RFP) with VPR An example of evaluated weights for rated criteria in a Request for Proposal document with a VPR (rated as a third component) is set out in the table below. Table B-1 Rated Criteria Weights TECHNICAL 60% - Experience & Qualifications of Team Lead 12% - Experience & Qualifications of Team 12% - Roles & Responsibilities of Team Members 12% - Experience in Similar Project Complexity 12% - Methodology / Approach to Project 12% FINANCIAL (bid/rate) 25% VPR 15% Total %

28 APPENDIX E INSERT DATE INSERT VENDOR NAME INSERT VENDOR ADDRESS WARNING LETTER RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Name: [Insert Project Name] Project Number: [Insert Project Number] Legal Name of Company: [Insert Legal Name] Vendor Number: [Insert Vendor Number] Pursuant to Infrastructure Ontario s Vendor Performance Program enclosed is your Warning Letter. An Infraction Report may be issued for the above noted company with respect to the above noted project unless the following has been resolved. Failure to comply with established communication protocols; Failure to comply with established site protocols pertaining to access, working hours, deliveries, notice, etc.; Failure to report a worksite incident to the Project Manager in a timely manner; Failure to update schedules as per contract; and Other minor performance deficiencies, which in the opinion of the Project Manager, affect or could affect the Vendor s ability to complete the project successfully. DETAILS: ADD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE MINOR DEFICENCIES HERE In accordance with the Vendor Performance Program, you have five (5) business days within issuance of this Warning Letter to submit a request for review to the Project Supervisor. This request for review must identify substantial and reasonable grounds for review and must be accompanied by supporting documentation. The Project Supervisor will verify the accuracy of your documentation and will issue a decision. The Project Supervisor s decision is final. If Infrastructure Ontario does not receive any response to this Warning Letter in writing from [insert company s legal name] within the five (5) day period, it will be deemed to have accepted the Warning Letter which is final. Further action may be taken, as warranted at the sole discretion of Infrastructure Ontario. Detailed information regarding the Vendor Performance Program can be accessed on Infrastructure Ontario s website [insert link].