Appendix A - Evaluation Forms (AFB-27-03-CW).pdf
PDF 184 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FRCC Security Upgrade, College-wide Phase 1 of 2
- Solicitation number
- IFB1 GJEA 2027000029 1
- Issued by
- Adams County, Weston CDP, Colorado
About this file
This document is an Appendix A evaluation forms package from the State of Colorado Office of the State Architect State Buildings Program for the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process RFQ1-AFB-27-03-CW. The file contains three standardized evaluation instruments designed to assess architectural, engineering, and consulting services firms competing for state building projects. The prequalification submittal evaluation form (Appendix A1) requires evaluators to verify that firms meet minimum requirements, including submission of a surety letter and acknowledgment/attestation documentation, before assessing qualifications across six categories: project team qualifications and experience, firm and team capabilities, prior experience on similar projects, project approach methodology, equity and diversity initiatives, and work location considerations. The oral interview evaluation form (Appendix A2) uses the same five primary evaluation categories to assess firms during in-person presentations, with evaluators assigning numerical ratings from 0 to 5. The ranking matrix (Appendix A3) consolidates evaluation results across multiple evaluators to determine the most qualified firm for selection.
The evaluation process utilizes a weighted scoring methodology in which agencies and institutions assign whole-number weights to each criterion prior to the evaluation period, and evaluators assign numerical ratings of 0 to 5 to individual criteria based on a standardized scale (0 = not provided, 1 = unacceptable, 2 = poor, 3 = fair, 4 = good, 5 = excellent). The forms provide guidance that agencies may establish additional project-specific criteria and optional passing score thresholds. The document does not specify pricing terms, contract amounts, funding sources, set-asides, response deadlines, or award dates, as it functions solely as an evaluation template to guide the selection of qualified professional services providers for state building projects.
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 =
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 = 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
References X =
4. PROJECT APPROACH Weight X Rating = Score Budget Methodology / Cost Control X = Quality Control Methodology X = Schedule X =
5. EQUITY, DIVERSIY 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 Location of prime and subconsultants X = Familiarity with project area X = Knowledge of local labor and material markets X =
Total Score: _________
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHITECT
STATE BUILDINGS PROGRAM
APPENDIX A2: ORAL INTERVIEW EVALUATION FORM
INSTRUCTIONS/EXAMPLE:
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 0 to 5 with 5 being the highest rating. (Use whole numbers), 0 is missing information.
4. Total Score: Includes the sum of all criteria. Note: a passing score (as a percentage of the total points available) is optional and should be assigned by the agency/institution prior to evaluation.
CRITERIA Weight X Rating = Score
1. PROJECT TEAM
x =
2. TEAM CAPABILITIES
3. PRIOR EXPERIENCE
4. PROJECT APPROACH
5. WORK LOCATION
TOTAL SCORE
x x x
_______x
5 =
________4
APPENDIX A3: PREQUALIFICATION AND ORAL
INTERVIEW RANKING MATRIX
QUALIFICATION BASED SELECTION
(Use this form to rank and determine the most qualified architectural/engineering/consulting services firm for both the preliminary and interview evaluations.)
FIRM NAME
QUALIFICATIONS
QUALS
SCORE
RANK
EVAL
#1
EVAL
#2
EVAL
#3
EVAL
#4
EVAL
#5
EVAL
#6
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .