082615 Weighted Eval Form.pdf
PDF 144 KB Posted
- Attached to
- OAAA, 2010, 082615, JFHQ Master Plan
- Solicitation number
- RFQ1 OAAA 2026000045 2
- Issued by
- Arapahoe County, Colorado
About this file
This is a Prequalification Submittal Evaluation Form from the State of Colorado Office of the State Architect State Buildings Program for the JFHQ Master Plan project. The form serves as a weighted evaluation tool used by agencies and institutions to assess the qualifications of firms submitting prequalification proposals. The evaluation process requires that minimum requirements, including a letter from surety and acknowledgment/attestation documentation, be met before firms advance in consideration. Evaluators assess firm qualifications across six primary categories: Project Team, Firm/Team Capabilities, Prior Experience, Project Approach, Equity/Diversity and Inclusion, and Work Location, with each category containing multiple sub-criteria.
The evaluation methodology employs a numerical rating scale from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating information not provided, 1 representing unacceptable qualifications, 2 poor, 3 fair, 4 good, and 5 excellent. Each criterion is assigned a weighted value using whole numbers, and the evaluator multiplies the weight by the numerical rating to calculate an individual score for each criterion. The total score is derived from the sum of all weighted criteria scores. Agencies and institutions are encouraged to customize additional criteria that reflect unique project characteristics. The form includes specific evaluation areas such as energy modeling capability, commissioning experience for similar facilities, value engineering participation, design durability and operability, schedule management, and considerations for diversity and inclusion through partnerships with service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses or other disadvantaged businesses. Work location evaluation considers the proximity of the firm's office to the project location and the firm's familiarity with the project area and its impact on system performance.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFQ1-App-A
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHITECT
STATE BUILDINGS PROGRAM
APPENDIX A1: PREQUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL
EVALUATION FORM
Name of Firm:____________________________________________________________________ Name of Project: _________________________________________________________________ Evaluator No:_______________________________________ Date:______________________________________________
RFQ REFERENCE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Y ____ N ____
If the minimum requirements (including letter from surety) have not been met, specify the reason(s):
Acknowledgment and Attestation included: Y ____ N ____
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Criteria: Agencies/Institutions are encouraged to include additional criteria that reflect unique characteristics of the project under each category to help determine the submitter’s overall qualifications.
2. Weights: Agency/Institutions to assign weights, using whole numbers, to all criteria on evaluation forms for inclusion into RFQ document and prior to evaluations.
3. Ratings: Evaluator to assess the strength of each firms qualifications and assign a numerical rating of 1 to 5 using whole numbers
4. Rating: 0 = Not provided, 1 = Unacceptable, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
5. Total Score: Includes the sum of all criteria.
1. PROJECT TEAM Weight X Rating = Score Qualifications and Relevant individual experience x = Unique knowledge of key team members X = Experience on projects as a team X = Key staff involvement in project management and on-site presence X = Time commitment of key staff X = Qualifications and relevant subconsultant experience X =
RFQ1-App-A
2. FIRM/TEAM CAPABILITIES Weight X Rating = Score Are the lines of authority and coordination clearly defined? X = Are essential management functions identified? X = Are the functions effectively integrated? (e.g., subconsultants’ role delineated)? X = Energy Modeling Capability? X = Current and projected work load. X =
3. PRIOR EXPERIENCE Weight X Rating = Score Experience of key staff and firm with projects of similar scope and complexity X = Demonstrated success on past projects of similar scope and complexity X = Experienced commissioning similar facilities X = References X =
4. PROJECT APPROACH Weight X Rating = Score Participate in Value Engineering Activities X = Ensure project is designed for durability and operability X = Tracking of design comments to ensure design compliance X = Manage required work to stay on project schedule X =
5. EQUITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION Weight X Rating = Score Incentives and promotion of diverse individuals X = Partnering with SDVOSB or other disadvantaged businesses X =
6. WORK LOCATION Weight X Rating = Score Proximity of firm’s office as it may affect coordination with the state's project manager and the potential project location X =
Firm’s familiarity with the project area X = Understanding of project locations impact on system performance X =
Total Score: _________
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .