6.8.2 Evaluation of the contract management procedures

Home Page  <<  >>

Despite the fact that the execution of the contract and performance of the Contractor are evaluated throughout the implementation of the Project (see section 6.6.1), the contract closure comprises the right time on the one hand, to assess the overall success of the Project implemented (see section 7.6.2) and the contract management procedures, and on the other to record systematically any weaknesses/ deficiencies in the provisions of the contract.

In order to evaluate whether the contract management procedures were successful, the Project Manager (or the Engineer) may use the Checklist below:


Checklist 6–7: Questions for the evaluation of the contract management procedures


Yes/ No

Comments23 [ In this column the Project Manager may describe which contract management procedures were applied successfully and which not. In addition, he may present proposals and practices that could be applied in similar projects in the future in order to ensure optimum contract management. ]

Was the response in the communications with the Contractor prompt?



Were all notices, approvals, decisions and consents given to the Contractor in writing?



Did the Contracting Authority furnish the Contractor with any information or/ and documentation that were necessary for the execution of the contract?



Was there a climate of cooperation between the Contracting Authority and Contractor?



Were there any violations of the Code of Ethics ascertained by the staff of the Contracting Authority that participated in the contract management?



Was any replacement of the staff of the Contractor implemented pursuant to what is set forth in the contract?



In a case where one of the members of the Contractor's Project Team was replaced, did his replacement have at least equivalent qualifications and experience?



Were the deadlines for the acceptance of deliverables observed on the part of the Contracting Authority?



Was there any modification of the contract made pursuant to what is provisioned in it and in the legislation regarding the execution of public contracts?



Was there a check made before making any changes in the contract that these did not distort the competition substantially?



Were the payments to the Contractor made pursuant to what is provisioned in the contract?



Were there any delayed payments made to the Contractor resulting in the Contracting Authority obligated to pay interest on these payments?

Was there termination of the contract caused due to liability of the Contracting Authority?

Were there any disputes between the Contracting Authority and Contractor?

In case there were disputes between Contracting Authority and Contractor, were these resolved by amicable settlement?

In case the disputes were not resolved by amicable settlement, were the procedures provisioned in the contract enforced for their resolution?

Were there any problems noticed during the execution of the contract for the resolution of which the contract lacked the relevant provision?

Going through the questions of the aforementioned list, the Project Manager (or Engineer) has the opportunity to clarify whether the problems that appeared during the management of the contract are due to weaknesses in the procedures/ tools/ techniques utilised, lack of required experience and of the appropriate competencies of the staff participating in the contract management or finally due to inadequacy or ambiguity in the provisions of the contract. The results from this critique are suggested to be recorded in order to be possible to use as "lessons learned" in the drafting and management of similar contracts in future.


© 2007 Republic of Cyprus, Treasury of the Republic, Public Procurement Directorate
Home Page | Government Web Portal | Disclaimer | Webmaster