APP A1 RFQ-COARNG-Weighted Evaluation.pdf
PDF 144 KB Posted
- Attached to
- OAAA, 2010, 082609, Pueblo West Master Plan
- Solicitation number
- RFQ1 OAAA 2026000046 2
- Issued by
- Arapahoe County, Colorado
About this file
This document is a Prequalification Submittal Evaluation Form from the State of Colorado Office of the State Architect State Buildings Program, used to assess the qualifications of firms seeking to work on the Pueblo West Master Plan project. The evaluation form serves as a standardized tool to measure firms' capabilities across six primary categories: Project Team qualifications and experience, Firm/Team Capabilities including management structure and energy modeling capability, Prior Experience with similar projects and commissioning work, Project Approach methodology, Equity Diversity and Inclusion initiatives, and Work Location proximity and familiarity with the project area. Each category contains specific criteria to which evaluators assign weighted values and numerical ratings from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating information not provided, 1 indicating unacceptable qualifications, and 5 indicating excellent qualifications. The evaluation process requires agencies to establish weights prior to solicitation and allows for the inclusion of additional project-specific criteria as deemed necessary.
The form instructs evaluators to calculate scores by multiplying the assigned weight by the numerical rating for each criterion, with the final total score representing the sum of all weighted criteria. The evaluation template includes standard assessment areas such as key staff qualifications and time commitment, subconsultant experience, lines of authority and coordination, project schedule management, and value engineering participation. Notably, the form emphasizes the importance of diversity and inclusion initiatives, including promotion of diverse individuals and partnerships with Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) or other disadvantaged businesses. Additionally, the evaluation considers the firm's work location and understanding of how project location impacts system performance, recognizing that proximity to the project site and familiarity with local conditions may affect coordination with the state's project manager and overall project success.
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 .