VPM City’s Perspective February 24, 2017

Agenda Main Topics History Typical Process City’s Perspective Future

VPM History Pre-VPM: No training for Project Managers Expectations were not clearly defined Communication on performance was poor Evaluations were not consistently completed Evaluations marking was inconsistent from project managers No consequence for poor performance and no reward for excellent performance Was more of a form than a process In general, a lot of vendors would not receive an evaluation after the project was completed. Some would be proactive and ask to have one completed. Marking of the vendors were not consistent, where some project managers would give 90% for a good job, while others would give 75% for a good job. The evaluation forms were the same, but what the project managers expectations were varied from project manager to project manager. Since an expectation meeting was never held, the vendors did not know how they would be evaluated. If an evaluation was completed, it would be put in the project file and nothing was done with them. Therefore, in general, the vendors did not care about receiving an evaluation and there was no consequence for poor performance. Also, during the course of the project, communication about the vendors performance was poor.

VPM History VPM Why? Mechanism to help ensure high quality vendors perform City work Commenced January 2015 Over 1000 projects (design and construction) have had VPM so far All consultant projects over $15,000 and construction projects over $100,000 are required to have VPM City staff completed training to help consistency The industry and City both realized that evaluation of the vendor performance was integral to achieving a superior project and that the current process was not acceptable. Through discussions with industry, the City commenced the formal process of VPM in January 2015. The VPM management is required on all consultant projects over $15,000 and all construction projects over $100,000. Since inception over 1000 projects have had VPM

Typical VPM Process Expectations are formally established Regular project VPM discussion Formal interim evaluations for projects greater than 1 year Draft evaluations discussion with vendors Final evaluations are reviewed with program manager prior to posting Appeals A committee of 3 program managers If no agreement or <70 >90, the appeal file is further escalated to the MAC All decisions on appeals are final The City has had meetings with the program managers to discuss the scoring of the VPM’s to ensure consistency amongst the groups. During these meetings, there were some tweaks to how the VPM’s are scored and everyone was in general had an agreement on the scoring. For VPM’s that are outliers (less than 70, 90 or more), the VPM’s are forwarded directly to the Branch manager for a second consistency review. With each consistency review, discussions are had with the project manager to ensure consistency in the scores. For the appeal process, both the vendor and project manager completes an information package that is reviewed by either committee. By asking for an appeal, the entire VPM is reviewed as an entire package (not just the section that is being appealed). It has occurred that sections not being appealed, have the marks changed (up or down). Vendors should be aware that this could occur and they should be certain that an appeal is appropriate for their VPM. The best process to discuss your VPM is during the course of the project. This allows the vendor to correct the deficiencies in the expectations at the start of the project so that everyone wins. One should remember that we are all one team and that a successful project is a success for the entire team. As with most issues on a projects, good communications will make everything easier.

City’s Perspective General feedback from City PM’s, on the VPM process: The majority of vendors are being proactive on how they can improve their service, and their VPM score Communications between PM’s and vendors have been formalized resulting in improved overall performance Most vendors are sensitive to issues that would effect their VPM scores and are therefore proactive in resolving them A consistent challenge with General Contractors is that their ability to manage subcontractors impacts their VPM scores. In general, the City has not seen a change in the interaction of the consultant and project manager due to the new VPM process. This could be due to consultants are not selected solely on low bid and their past performance carries weight on their selection. Consultants who continually perform poorly are less successful in the RFQ/RFP process. However, this is new to contractors. Some contractors were very proactive at the start of the VPM process to help ensure that they were successful. While some others have taken a while to adjust to the VPM. We have seen a change with some contractors in which they are going above and beyond expectations on a project to increase their VPM score. We have found that these contractors are proactive at looking at future issues and ways to solve them, a decrease in frivolous claims, an increase in effort to help the general public and residents and an overall great communications between contractor and project manager. When I go to site meetings with these contractors, it is very apparent that everyone is working as a team on the project. I view this is a success of the VPM process and vendors who have embraced the VPM process will be re-warded when their scores have an impact on obtaining projects at the City.

Future City’s Supply management are currently meeting with the industry (CEO, OCA, NCHCA, etc) to discuss 2016 VPM stats and results, and the future of VPM Considerations to proceed in using vendor scores in bid evaluations in 2018

Thank-you! And now Phil Whelan will present for the consultant’s perspective