Contractors' Questionnaire - Construction Owners Association of ...

1. Excellent - Highly skilled and experienced members with authority; representation from
business, project management, technical disciplines, and operations; able to respond to
both business and project objectives.
2. Poor - Members with a poor combination of skill or experience that lack authority;
insufficient representation from business, project management, technical disciplines, and
operations; unable to respond to both business and project objectives.
Select a number below that best describes the technology evaluation performed for this
project during Front End Planning.
Poor Average Excellent
◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Excellent - Thorough and detailed identification and analysis of existing and emerging
technologies for feasibility and compatibility with corporate business and operations
objectives. Scale-up problems and hands-on process experience were considered.
2. Poor - Poor or no technology evaluation.
Select a number below that best describes the evaluation of alternate siting locations.
Poor Average Excellent
◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
• Excellent - Thorough and detailed assessment of relative strengths and weaknesses of
alternate locations to meet owner requirements.
• Poor - Poor or no evaluation of alternate siting locations.
Select a number below that best describes the risk analysis performed for project alternatives.
Poor Average Excellent
◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Excellent - Risks associated with the selected project alternatives were identified and
analyzed. These analyses included financial/business, regulatory, project and operational
risk categories in order to minimize the impacts of risks on project success.
2. Poor - Poor or no risk analysis performed for project alternatives.
59