Supplier performance Supplier Performance
The objective of the Contract Evaluation process is to monitor and evaluate the performance of supplier engagements with Auckland Transport.
The process of evaluation ensures that risks are managed, value for money is achieved, and poorly performing suppliers are avoided in the future.
The approach taken by Auckland Transport is a co-ordinated one, i.e. the supplier is also involved, rather than a one-sided assessment in isolation. This approach is referred to as Auckland Transport Performance Assessment by Coordinated Evaluation (ATPACE).
ATPACE is a joint initiative between Procurement and Business Units.
The purpose of ATPACE is to:
- Enable continuous dialogue with Suppliers.
- Provide a means of systematically monitoring performance of AT’s Suppliers.
- Provide a historical database to assist in Track Record assessment in future Tender Evaluations.
Give suppliers a better understanding of where their focus should be to enable the successful delivery of their contract.
About ATPACE
ATPACE System
The ATPACE System is a SharePoint based database that allows Contact Managers to carry out supplier performace evaluations based on their contract requirements. Through initial notification via e-mails, the Contract Manager and Supplier Representative are prompted to log on to the ATPACE System and complete their actions.
It provides a platform for:
- Contract Managers to generate evaluations within the system and send to the Supplier Representative.
- Supplier Representatives to review and ‘Accept or Disagree’ with the evaluation.
- Supplier Representatives to print Final evaluation(s) to use as part of a tender submission.
- AT relevant General Managers to sign off Final evaluations via the ATPACE System.
- Reports to be generated.
- AT Staff members to see final evaluations of all suppliers.
Access and help
Full access to the ATPACE System will be limited to AT employees. Supplier’s access to the ATPACE System will be limited only to viewing their own contracts and evaluations.
Access is granted through an on boarding process facilitated by the ATPACE Administrator.
For login issues, please call the AT Service Desk on 0800 28 277 478.
Alternatively, please email the AT PACE Adminstrator.
Evaluations
Frequency of evaluating contracts
Contracts longer than 60 days are subject to monthly evaluations (Interim Evaluation). No evaluation would be expected in the first month, as work is only just commencing.
The final evaluation should be completed shortly after contract completion, or after the defects notification period. Where applicable, a Supplier may enter their final evaluation score in future AT Tender documents under Track Record non-price attribute.
For long term contracts and Supplier Panel/ Master Services Agreements, overall performance evaluation might be carried quarterly or annually. This decision will be made on case by case basis.
Performance criteria
The four ATPACE performance criteria are:
- Management: Skill levels and competency, risk management, creating a ‘no surprises’ environment, responsiveness, creating innovation and proactiveness.
- Production: Ability to meet programme, timely outputs, achieve the specified standard, accurate outputs to required standards and defect management systems.
- Health and Safety: Safe work practices and traffic management control.
- Administration: QA documentation, monthly reporting, financial and handling of variations.
Details of each performance criteria topic relevant to the contract being assessed will be explained at the first interim ATPACE evaluation. If not relevant the score will be ‘not applicable’. View performance criteria for asset construction and professional services contracts.
View performance criteria for Asset construction (PDF 275KB) and Professional services contracts (PDF 275KB).
Grading Process
The AT Contract Manager completes the evaluation by selecting an appropriate performance rating for each performance criteria. By choosing one of the numbers alongside each of the performance measures that matches that grading, an overall grading will be calculated. Where ‘not applicable’ has been selected the overall grading is averaged out.
| Rate number | Grade | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | <5 | Unacceptable Significant issues requiring immediate attention. |
| 1 | 5-20 | Serious reservations A number of weaknesses, particularly in areas that are identified as critical, will result in a 'Serious Reservations' grade and we would expect improvement in performance. |
| 2 | 21-40 | Minor reservations Minor reservations mean there are areas of weakness or suboptimal performance in one or more categories. |
| 3 | 41-60 | Good Good is considered as 'Business as Usual'. It should be measured as a level where the Supplier fully meets contract requirements without the need for AT intervention. It's the benchmark from which all Suppliers are measured. |
| 4 | 61-80 | Very good Achieving 'Very Good' grades is possible if the Supplier is delivering better than the specified contract standard, and doing so without AT intervention. |
| 5 | 81-100 | Excellent 'Excellence' requires not only consistency, but value added features such as proactiveness, flexibility, identifying and pursuing innovation, and other factors that would lead you to describe the Supplier as being at the leading edge of the industry |
Supplier meeting
This should ideally be a face to face meeting. The ATPACE System has the ability to send a draft evaluation to the Supplier Representative. During the meeting discussion, the initial scores can be adjusted by the Contract Manager. Once agreed, this evaluation can then be resubmitted to the Supplier Representative to enable them via the ATPACE System to ‘Accept/Disagree’. Or the Contract Manager has the ability to Accept on behalf of the Supplier Representative if appropriate.
If the agreed document is re-submitted to the Supplier Representative (as per the process) and they do not acknowledge by either ‘Accept/Disagree’ within 10 Working Days, the scores on that evaluation will be automatically accepted.
Escalation process
The Supplier has the right to challenge any evaluation, and the right to escalate the issue if it cannot be resolved at the initial level i.e. the face to face meeting.
Despite this, completion of the interim evaluation form without the ‘Acceptance’ of the Supplier, does not invalidate the evaluation. The resulting evaluation form shall still be considered a bona fide performance evaluation.
In the event that an ATPACE evaluation requires a rating to be moderated, the ATPACE evaluation form will be re-assessed by the applicable AT Project Manager, Supplier’s Representative, the AT General Manager of the applicable Department and the relevant AT Procurement Manager.
In the event of any disagreement, the rating assessed by the GM and the Procurement Manager will be the final grading.
Use of ATPACE information in tender evaluation
In tender evaluations, a Supplier’s previous performance is evaluated under the Track Record non-price attribute. Track Record is an assessment of the Supplier’s record of delivering works or services to the quality standards required, on time and within budget. Suppliers that wish to participate in AT Tenders will be required to include Final ATPACE ratings for contracts nominated under Track Record, as a part of their non-price attribute tender submission.
For Suppliers with no previous ATPACE scores we will take 100% from the Track Record Score on nominated contracts in RFP response. Tender Evaluation Team may undertake ATPACE evaluation with the referee nominated for the Contract using ATPACE Methodology.