Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

B & R-C

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 1 of 18

Supplier Performance Evaluation

Procedure

Nom et Prnoms
Visa

Rdige par
C Harradine

Vrifie par
Z Belhamel

Approuve par
T.Mokrane

21/12/02

28/12/02

06/01/03

Date
Evolution du document :
Date
06.01.03

Indice
0

Objet de la modification
Cration

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 2 of 18

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

B & R-C

Table of Contents:

Pages:

1.

Introduction and Purpose

2.

Report Formats

3.

Reporting Process

4.

Completing the Supplier Performance Report

5.

Score Allocation

6.

Providing Supporting Comments

7.

Approval of a Supplier Performance Feedback Report

8.

Supplier Performance Evaluation Scoring Prompts

9.

8.1.

Schedule Compliance

8.2.

Commercial Conformance

8.3.

Speed & Responsiveness

8.4.

Quality of Work

10

8.5.

Technical Contribution & Design Facilities

11

8.6.

Control & Adequacy of Facilities

11

8.7.

Documentation

12

8.8.

Health Safety & Environmental

13

8.9.

Sub-Supplier Management

13

8.10.

Commissioning & Installation

14

8.11.

Start-Up & Initial Operations

14

8.12.

Operational Manuals

15

8.13.

Performance In Service

15

Attached Forms

16

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

B & R-C

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 3 of 18

1. Introduction and Purpose

The main philosophy behind the Supplier Performance Database and associated reporting process is to
create a system that is factually based and will be utilised by all B&RC projects. This philosophy is
important for a number of reasons not least because it protects our legal position associated with
maintaining data on Suppliers but because ultimately whatever information we provide in a performance
evaluation form has to stand up to a Supplier viewing it.
From a commercial perspective Supplier Performance evaluation is part of our due diligence process and a
major factor in how we manage our risk. Low historical performance represents risk in terms of cost and
schedule and should be addressed at the Bidder List agreement stage. For example if a client nominates
their Approved Supplier as part of the project contract two approaches are possible:
If a contract is reimbursable. The client should be informed of our concerns and our recommendation (i.e.
to include / not include in the Bidders list, validate concerns via pre-award audit etc). Ultimately the
decision may be the clients and the project team may need to add costs for maintenance / monitoring
and negotiate time implication with the client
Lump sum / fixed fee type commercial project arrangements. Where the risk for cost and schedule is with
B&RC the Project P&M Manager should advocate alternative Suppliers to the Client at the bid stage
where a nominated Supplier has poor historical performance that represents increased risk. Where the
client insists on the nominated Supplier engagement of Project Management to evaluate cost and
schedule risk implications and negotiate a change order
Obviously, where exceptional Supplier performance has been recorded this represents reduced risk and
may result in a project recommending such Suppliers as alternatives to clients.
This document:
describes the reporting process and use of the Supplier Performance Report in a way that minimises the
time taken to complete the reports
creates consistency and factual input in how Suppliers performance is evaluated

2. Report Formats
There are two forms to use:
Project Feedback Used by a Package Team covering work up to release
In-Service Feedback Used by a site based time to record any Installation / commissioning or In-service
performance
Report forms are attached at the back of this document.

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

Indice de rvision : 0
Page 4 of 18

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

B & R-C

Date : 06/Janv/03

3. Reporting Process
The Buyer (or Subcontract Administrator in the case of subcontracts) is responsible for completion of
relevant reports and obtaining input from other disciplines using the process outlined below.
Buyer distributes
copy of Performance
Report to Project Team

E-mail

Project Team use

guidance document to
complete form

E-mail

Buyer consolidates
scores - identifies
inconsistencies

Telephone
or Meeting
Buyer Inputs
Performance Report
into reporting system

E-mail

Review & Approval

by Project P&M
Manager

Supplier Reviews
Clarifies / agrees
Performance Report

E-mail
E-mail
or Meet

Discuss as necessary
to review differences
and agree final score

If Supplier
agreement
is needed

Performance scores will be recorded in the Supplier Database in order provide visibility of historical
performance records.

Typical steps to be followed when a member of the project team provides input to a Supplier Performance
Report are:
Request / Receive
Report Form and
Guideline from Buyer

At demobilization or last
Release Note raise report
for each relevant Order

Email form back

to the Buyer

Read prompts in
Guideline - allocate
scores + comments

For each topic consider

Supplier Performance
on scale of 1 to 9

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

B & R-C

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 5 of 18

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

4. Completing the Supplier Performance Report

Procurement extract report from System with

pre-populated project details already complete

Complete names of Package Team - This is to enable

future projects to contact team members for more
details
or context relating to reports in the system

Function scores provisionally. Note: HSE input

is coordinated by Engineering or Quality as agreed
by the Project. Document Management and Expediting
input is coordinated by Procurement

Procurement Reviews input and facilitates agreed

scores where differences are greater than 1and ensures
entry of comments as required

After any required agreement with Supplier, Project

NOTES
1.

Where there is a commitment to share the performance report with a Supplier and there is impending
commercial follow-up or claim, information must not be passed on to protect our position.
2. For frame agreements of Subcontracts / Orders with deliveries over an extended period of time (e.g.
two years) a yearly performance evaluation report should be completed.
3. For a Supplier providing several items as part of an order scope from the same location over the same
time period, it is acceptable to evaluate Supplier performance in the context of the whole order. In such
cases enter the agreed scores / comments for the order against each item supplied.
4. Project teams are encouraged with long term Orders / Subcontracts to use the report categories to
form an agenda for review meetings with the Supplier as appropriate.
At Kick off to exchange our perceptions of the Suppliers strengths and weaknesses to develop an
action plan that addresses known / historical problem areas
Mid way through the order / Subcontract to provide a sense check for the team regarding Supplier
performance and highlight any risk areas emerging
In this way a progressive evaluation of the Suppliers performance can be assessed and also shared with
the Supplier to influence improvements during Subcontract / Order execution.

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 6 of 18

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

B & R-C

5. Score Allocation
Scores should be allocated on a scale of 1 to 9 using the following principle.

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Many weaknesses can perform work but

cannot meet the
desired standards of
performance without
excessive company
intervention /
support.

Some weaknesses
and considerable
company intervention /
support

Few weaknesses and

some company
intervention / support.

Desirable
Generally meets
desired standard of
performance or
exceed the desired
standards of
performance. Very
few weaknesses.

The tables at the back of this document provide a text description / interpretation of each key category
(Desirable, Acceptable, Undesirable, and Unacceptable). The match with these descriptions dictates the
allocation of scores as follows:
Consider which description fits closest to the Supplier performance and allocate score as follows:
Close fit assign designated score (for example performance fits Acceptable category assign 6)
Mixed assign mid score (for example performance fits some aspects of Acceptable and some
aspects of Desirable category assign 7)
No fit This will be relevant to situations that exceed Desirable or are worse than Unacceptable in
which case 9 or 1 should be allocated as appropriate
Only allocate whole numbers (do not use decimal points)

Notes
You should only mark those elements that form the scope of work and where you have knowledge of the
Suppliers performance. For example the Engineer may have only dealt with front-end design aspects and
therefore would rely on Quality (for example) to evaluate Quality of the work.
2. Reviewers should be particularly careful when reviewing such aspects as document management and
Schedule Compliance. Support groups such as Document Management group and Expediting may be
actively intervening (resolving problems). This may create a false sense of performance to other project
team members and so such groups must be consulted before completing the performance evaluation.
1.

6. Providing Supporting Comments

The generic descriptions for each scoring category will not cover specific circumstances so it is important
to record the context for scores in particular those in the high and low range.
In addition each individual should include comments as follows:
1. When scores in the range of 1 to 3 or the range 8 to 9 inclusive are entered, a note must be added in
the free text section providing a short and concise explanation for the score.
2. Where there are circumstances that influenced the Suppliers performance that were outside the
Suppliers control a note should also be added to this effect. An example might be say late installation
(Commissioning & Installation). Two contrasting views might be:
Delay was due to an unexpected poor weather window
However it could be the poor weather could have been easily predicted

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

B & R-C

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 7 of 18

3.

Notes or comments must be factual with no personal opinion or interpretation of events. For example
The Contracts manager Mr .. was useless is not an acceptable comment even if it were true in the
reviewers opinion. In contrast a note to record the fact that the Supplier did not have up to-date
information about Sub Supplier production / release status and forecast / promised delivery dates
continually slipped focuses on the real issue that affected the project.
4. When recording delivery performance please note the following
Delivery is defined as the contractual commitment date including any change orders that impacted
delivery
Where multiple components are delivered against multiple delivery dates then a range of delivery
performance (typically best and worst) should be recorded e.g. +1 to -6 wks.
Where accelerated delivery has been agreed and paid for, the revised (earlier) date shall be the
contractual date that the performance is measured against
Any cause of late delivery should be concisely noted in the comments section of the report
5. Consider If you were to do the order again with this Supplier what would you do differently?. Record
views in the comments section for future projects to benefit from lessons / insights gained with the
Supplier and update the Lessons Learned register accordingly. This provides an opportunity to apply
knowledge of what took place and comment on the basis of 20/20 hindsight what the team would have
done differently given the same set of circumstances.

7. Approval of a Supplier Performance Feedback Report

Prior to inputting Supplier Performance Feedback Reports, the Project P&M manager (or other designated
Project Authorisation Manager agreed with P&M) must submit each report to the P&M Division manager for
approval. The following principals must be followed:
The Buyer / Subcontract Administrator responsible for the Order / Sub Contract is responsible for
obtaining input, facilitating agreement to the score and entering information into the database
If the Project Team cannot reach consensus the team should defer to the Project P&M Manager for
resolution. During resolution the Project P&M Manager will normally favour the view of the discipline
involved who has the most expertise in the element being scored.

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 8 of 18

B & R-C

8. Supplier Performance Evaluation - Scoring Prompts

8.1. Schedule Compliance

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

Unreliable completion / delivery

compromising ability to meet
project commitments.

Inconsistent completion / delivery.

Consistent completion / delivery

within the agreed delivery window
period.

Consistent completion / delivery

within the requested delivery
window period.

Suitable monitoring and status

processes in place.

Good monitoring and sta tus

processes in place.

Some project intervention required

to reschedule or to expedite
Supplier.

Minimum intervention by project.

Lack of visibility regarding

monitoring and statusing
progress.
High project intervention and
possibly alternate Sourcing
required.

1 2

Suitable monitoring and status

processes in place but problem
areas not communicated /
resolved effectively
Increased project intervention
necessary to assist Supplier
instead of depending on Supplier.

3 4

5 6

7 8

8.2. Commercial Conformance

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

Low understanding of change

impact, inadequate adjustment of
plans and work in progress.

Project requested changes

processed with little review of
change impact.

Major problems giving any

operational warrantees or
accepting Terms & Conditions or
relevant flow down prime contract
conditions by Supplier.

Reluctant to give any operational

warrantees or to accept Terms &
Conditions or relevant prime
contract conditions already
accepted by other Suppliers.

Good liaison with Project to ensure

change requirements were
understood and efficiently
incorporated into the work.

Proactive liaison with Project to

adapt to changes and minimise
schedule / cost impact related to
Project requested changes.

Provided relevant operational

warrantees and accepted relevant
Prime contract conditions.

Positive approach to accepting

operational warrantees and
relevant Prime contract
conditions.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 9 of 18

B & R-C

Additional factors when back charges are relevant.

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

Backcharges claimed Supplier

refused to accept well
documented / proven backcharges
forcing consideration of litigation.

Backcharges claimed
Protracted and lengthy defence by
Supplier before accepting liability
and costs for well documented /
proven backcharges.

Backcharges claimed Supplier

accepted liability and costs of well
documented / proven backcharges
after some Negotiation.

Backcharges claimed
Supplier sought clarification and
accepted liability and costs of
well documented / proven
backcharges. Additionally
proactive in seeking
discussions to avoid future
repetition.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

8.3. Speed and Responsiveness

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

Reluctant to provide information

during the budget pricing phase or
Supplied non-compliant bid that
required significant development.

Responded to Project requests

with limited information - Supplied
a compliant bid that required
some clarification.

Good liaison with Project including

budget-pricing phase Supplied a
fully compliant bid that required little
or no clarification.

Lack of understanding about

Project requirements post award.

Project needed to clarify

requirements post award.

Good understanding of Project

requirements.

Proactive liaison with Project

including budget pricing phase.
Supplied all requested
information in a well-ordered
concise proposal. Proposed
mutually beneficial
improvements.

Late deployment of resources that

jeopardized project commitments
to the client.

Deployment of manufacturing /
service delivery resources
adversely delayed (Although they
did not ultimately affect delivery).

Reliably deployed manufacturing /

service delivery resources.

1 2

3 4

5 6

Good processes to clarify

understanding of requirements
with project and effective / timely
deployment of manufacturing /
service delivery resources.

7 8

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 10 of 18

B & R-C

8.4. Quality of Work

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

Lack of adequate Testing,

Inspection and QA/ QC
Procedures or controls at the
Supplier / on site.

Test, Inspection and QA/ QC

Procedures or controls inadequate
at the Supplier / on site in some
cases.

Suitable Test, Inspection and QA/

QC Procedures or controls in place
at the Supplier / on site.

Good Test, Inspection and QA/

QC Procedures or controls in
place and proactively managed
at the Supplier / on site.

Consistent non-conformance to
specifications either through test
or Inspection.

Over-reliance on Inspection and

test to detect non-conformance
and as a result some test /
Inspection failures.

Required high level of Project

assistance to comply with local
statutory requirements
As a result high project
intervention (Inspection / test
attendance) was required.

Over-reliance on project to provide

guidance on local statutory
requirements
Some cases of non-conformance
that did not impact delivery.

With minor exceptions conformed to

specifications.
Needed some Project support to
understand Local statutory
requirements.
Good controls in place conducting
timely, accurate Inspections / tests
reducing need for project
intervention.
ISO9001 system being developed.

1 2

3 4

5 6

Consistent conformance to
specifications and compliance
with local statutory
requirements.
Systematic, proactive approach
to control processes providing
assurance of conformance
minimizing need for Project
intervention.
An ISO9001 registered
company.

7 8

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 11 of 18

B & R-C

8.5. Technical Contribution and Design Facilities

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

No formal design control

processes in use high level of
Project intervention by Engineering

Limited expertise or design

controls in place requiring some
Project intervention by Engineering

Supplier neglects innovation and /

or offers non-competitive
technology.

Supplier resists innovation and / or

products are threatened by
technical obsolescence.

Effective expertise and design

controls in place produced design
data generally on time with low level
of comment. Good co-operation
with the Project Engineering.

Well-developed design
expertise and controls in place
with effective monitoring of
technical delivery performance.
Demonstrated ability to share
design function with Project.

Supplier has no formal process of

improvement and implements
Corrective Action only if requested.

Supplier focuses on identifying

problems and correcting them.

1 2

Develops technically suitable,

reliable and acceptable products /
services.
Supplier emphasizes problem
solution i.e. reactive prevention of
re-occurrence.

3 4

5 6

Develops technically suitable,

reliable and acceptable
products / services that reduced
project cost, / lead-time or
increased reliability.
Continuously seeks
opportunities to improve.

7 8

8.6. Control and Adequacy of Facilities

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

Unreliable or lack of formal

planning and control processes
for work loading and timely
allocation of suitable capability /
facilities compromising ability to
meet project requirements.

Some problems experienced with

suitability of facilities.

Appropriate capability / facilities in

place and systematic approach to
planning and control processes.

Excellent understanding of
capabilities and suitability of
facilities.

Normal project monitoring / review

necessary.

Planning / control processes in

place, good interfaces
established with the Project to
provide flexibility to meet any
changing project requirements.

High project monitoring and

intervention necessary.

Limited planning or contingency

allocation requiring detailed review
by Project team to provide
assurance of capability / facility
suitability and controls.

Self-managing capability
providing active project support.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 12 of 18

B & R-C

8.7. Documentation

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

Reluctant to provide
documentation/data in project
format or persistent late delivery of
data.

Generally complied with project

format requirements and provided most
documents/data files on time. Some
delays with remaining
documentation/data at completion.

Most documentation/data provided

in project format on time with timely
close out of all remaining
documentation/data files at
completion.

Proactive approach to document

management with timely delivery
and closeout of all documentation
requirements.

Documentation/data files provided

only after some minimal Project
intervention.

Satisfactory and timely document

/data management process in
place requiring no Project
intervention.

Post

Required significant project

intervention.

1 2

3 4

5 6

Demonstrated an ability to
improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the process for
both parties.

7 8

Post

For use when documents and/or data files are transmitted via Post

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

Reluctant to provide
documentation/data in project
format or persistent late delivery of
documentation

Generally complied with project

format requirements and provided most
documents/files on time. Some delays
with remaining documentation/data at
completion.

Most documentation/data provided

in project format on time with timely
close out of all remaining
documentation at completion.

Proactive approach to document

management with timely delivery
and closeout of all documentation
requirements.

Satisfactory and timely electronic

document/data management
process requiring no Project
intervention.

Proactive approach to electronic

document management with an
ability to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of the process
for both parties.

Unable to provide
documentation/data electronically
without significant Project
intervention.

1 2

Inefficient process for the management

of electronic documentation/data
requiring minimal Project intervention.

3 4

5 6

7 8

Electronic

Electronic

For use when documents and/or data files are transmitted or exchanged electronically

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 13 of 18

B & R-C

8.8. Health Safety and Environmental

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

No formal control (management

system) in place to manage
Health, Safety and Environmental
matters, compliance or
performance.

Limited controls (management

system) in place managing some
Health, Safety and Environmental
matters, compliance or
performance.

Effective controls (management

system) in place to manage Health,
Safety and Environmental matters,
their effects, compliance issues
and performance.

Well-developed controls
(management system) over all
Health, Safety and Environmental
matters, effects and performance.

Required significant project

intervention

Required some project

intervention and support.

Little project intervention and

support needed.

1 2

3 4

5 6

Performance exceptions clearly

exceeded.

7 8

8.9. Sub-Supplier Management

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

No established Sub Supplier

register or performance
assessment and no formal
monitoring or control processes in
place.

Formal processes for Sub

Supplier selection in place but
over reliance on Sub-Supplier to
perform with no appropriate review
or monitoring processes.

Formal processes in place for

selection and performance
monitoring of Sub Suppliers.

Well established Supply chain

and understanding of SubSupplier capabilities and
performance.

Continual problems associated

with Sub Suppliers and or reliance
on Project intervention to manage
output of Sub-Suppliers.

Some problems with Sub Supplier

performance requiring some
unplanned Project intervention

1 2

3 4

Established effective processes in

place to monitor progress and take
appropriate action ensuring the
provision of components or
services from Sub-Suppliers was
provided in a timely way.

5 6

Appropriate Sub-Supplier
controls and communication
channels established providing
reliable and timely supply.

7 8

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 14 of 18

B & R-C

8.10. Commissioning & Installation

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

Did not make sufficient

mobilisation arrangements
causing significant delays in
commencement.

Some problems experienced in

arranging mobilisation and some
delays in commencement of the
work.

Mobilised in line with Project

requirements.

Excellent Mobilisation
management, planning and
support easily meeting agreed
schedules.

Installation not functionally correct

initially.

1 2

Met functional specified

requirements.

Some functions not met initially but

rectified with little schedule impact.

3 4

Met all functional specified

requirements. Functions
performed significantly more
efficiently than specified.

5 6

7 8

8.11. Start-Up and Initial Operations

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

Start-up was not on time due to

equipment performance problems

Start-up was not delayed but

equipment performance problems
were encountered

Start-up on time

Early start-up assisted by

Supplier pro-actively managing
their scope to complete early
and meet all functional
requirements

Performance requirements not

met over initial operational period
Breakdowns occurred requiring
frequent requiring high level of
unplanned intervention

1 2

Performance requirements not

met in minor cases during initial
operational period

Functions performed as expected

and met functional specified
requirements throughout initial
operational period.

Functions performed
significantly more efficiently than
specified.

Breakdowns requiring minimal

level of unplanned intervention
occurred

3 4

5 6

7 8

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 15 of 18

B & R-C

8.12. Operational Manuals

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

Information not indexed

adequately to enable information
to be retrieved quickly and logically

Documentation was indexed and

of suitable reproducible quality, but
no aids provided to locate
information quickly and logically.

All documentation was well

indexed, logical and of good
reproducible quality.

All documentation was wellindexed, logical and good

reproducible quality with user
aids to enable easy location of
information

Documents describing the

operation and maintenance of
equipment were of poor
reproducible quality and / or lacked
sufficient detail

1 2

All relevant documents approved

by the Project were included.

3 4

Information was complete with

approved documents and
Operational issues were described
in detail.

5 6

All information was complete

with approved documents well
described in a concise manner
to an appropriate level of detail

7 8

8.13. Performance In Service

Unacceptable

Undesirable

Acceptable

Desirable

Did not make sufficient

mobilisation arrangements
causing significant delays in
responding to maintenance, repair
or investigation assistance
requests

Some problems experienced in

arranging mobilisation and some
delays in commencement of
maintenance, repair or
investigative work

Responsive to maintenance, repair

or investigative work

Functions performed
significantly more efficiently than
specified.

Breakdowns more Frequent than

comparable equipment

Performance requirements not

met in minor cases not affecting
operability and availability

Cons istently failed to meet

performance / function
requirements

Breakdowns requiring minimal

level of unplanned intervention
occurred

1 2

3 4

Functions performed as expected

and met functional specified
requirements

5 6

7 8

Supplier Performance Evaluation Procedure

DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03
B & R-C

9. Attached Forms
Project Supplier Performance Evaluation Form
In Service Supplier Performance Evaluation Form

Date : 06/Janv/03
Indice de rvision : 0
Page 16 of 18

PPROJECT SUPPLIER PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION FORM

B&R-C

Date :
Page : Page 1 of 18

Supplier ..

Agent

Supplier Location

Agent Location ...

Project Name ..
Project Type ..

PO / SC No ...

Client .......

Goods & Services Supply .

Spend (US$).....

Prepared by: Engineer (Name .), Quality: (Name .), Subcontract Ad/ Buyer : (Name .)

SCORE ALLOCATION
Unacceptable
1

Undesirable
3

Category
1

Acceptable
5

Engineering

Desirable
7

Provisional Scoring
Quality
Procurement

9
Agreed Score

Schedule Compliance

Commercial Conformance

Speed and Responsiveness

Quality of Work

Technical Contribution

Control and Adequacy of Facilities

Documentation

Health, Safety & Environment

Sub Supplier Management

Delivery Performance

___(+ or Wks)

If late was cause: (S) Supplier or (O) Other Party?

Was security performance relevant to the scope of work? Yes / NA

Was agreement by Supplier relevant? Yes / NA

Number of recorded Security Breaches? ___

Did Supplier agree with performance score? Yes / Objected

Comments:
Generally provide comment on exceptionally good or poor scores (1 to 3 or 8 to 9 Inclusive)

If you were to do the order again with this Supplier what would you do differently?

Notes: 1. HSE input to be co-ordinated by Engineering or Quality as agreed by Project.

2. Expediting / Document Management input is co-ordinated by the Buyer (POs) or Subcontract Administrator (Subcontracts).
3. If provisional scores are within 1, Agreed Score i s highest. If provisional scores are greater than 1 team agree final score.

Approval by: (Name: )

Signature ...

Position: ...

Email address: ...

P&M FRM SPE1-0 (DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03)

IN SERVICE SUPPLIER PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION FORM

B&R-C

Date :
Page : Page 1 of 18

Supplier ..

Agent

Project Name ..

Supplier Location

Agent Location ...

Project Type ..

PO / SC No ...

Client .......

Goods & Services Supply .

Spend (US$).....

Prepared by: Engineer (Name ), Site/Operations: (Name .), Procurement : (Name )

SCORE ALLOCATION
Unacceptable
1

Undesirable
3

Category
10

Acceptable

Engineering

6
Provisional Scoring
Site / Operations

Desirable
7
Procurement

9
Agreed Score

Commissioning and Installation

11

Start-up and Initial Operations

12

Operational Manuals

13

Performance In Service

Was start up on time? Yes / No

If no how late was start-up? ___(+ or Wks)

If late was cause: (S) Supplier or (O) Other Party?

Was installation functionality correct? Yes / No

If not was cause: (S) Supplier or (O) Other Party?

Was security performance relevant to the scope of work? Yes / NA

Was agreement by Supplier relevant? Yes / NA

Number of recorded Security Breaches? ___

Did Supplier agree with performance score? Yes / Objected

Comments:
Generally provide comment on exceptionally good or poor scores (1 to 3 or 8 to 9 Inclusive)

If you were to use the Supplier again what would you recommend we do differently?

Note: 1. HSE input to be co-ordinated by Engineering as agreed by Project.

2. Quality input to be co-ordinated by Site (Construction or Operations as appropriate) as agreed by Project.
3. If provisional scores are within 1, Agreed Score is highest. If provisional scores are greater than 1 team agree final score.

Approval by: (Name: )

Signature ...

Position: ...

Email address: ...

P&M FRM SPE2-0 (DOP2000-PRC-001-0-03)