Appendix A - Evaluation Forms.docx
DOCX document 55 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FRCC Facility Condition Assessment
- Solicitation number
- RFQ1 GJEA 2026000040 1
- Issued by
- Adams County, Weston CDP, Colorado
About this file
This document comprises evaluation forms and a ranking matrix developed by the State of Colorado Office of the State Architect State Buildings Program for the prequalification and selection of architectural, engineering, and consulting services firms for the FRCC Facility Condition Assessment project. The forms establish a standardized methodology for evaluating firms through both written submittals and oral interviews, with evaluation criteria organized into six primary categories: Project Team, Firm/Team Capabilities, Prior Experience, Project Approach, Equity/Diversity/Inclusion, and Work Location. Evaluators assess firm qualifications using a numerical rating scale from 0 to 5, with detailed definitions provided (0 = Not Provided, 1 = Unacceptable, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent). The prequalification submittal evaluation form requires verification that minimum requirements, including a letter from surety and an acknowledgment and attestation, have been met prior to scoring. The oral interview evaluation form mirrors the prequalification criteria and allows agencies to assign weighted values to each criterion as whole numbers to reflect project-specific characteristics. A ranking matrix consolidates results from multiple evaluators across both preliminary and interview evaluations to determine the most qualified firm.
The evaluation framework emphasizes both technical competency and commitment to diversity and inclusion initiatives, including scoring criteria for incentives promoting diverse individuals and partnerships with service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB) and other disadvantaged enterprises. Agencies are instructed to assign whole number weights to all criteria prior to evaluation and may establish optional passing score thresholds as a percentage of total available points. The prequalification form specifically requires documentation of budget methodology, quality control procedures, and scheduling approaches, while work location criteria assess the geographic proximity and market familiarity of prime and subconsultants. No specific contract duration, pricing information, incumbent contractor details, or funding sources are identified in these evaluation forms.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFQ Facilities Conditions Assessment May 2026 final.pdf | ||
| Appendix D - Building Inventory List.pdf | ||
| Appendix B - SC5.2 AE CMGC_2025.docx | DOCX document | |
| Appendix C - Acknowledgement and Attestation Form.pdf |
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
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: _________
RFQ1-App-A
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
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 |
image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .