Appendix A - Evaluation Forms.docx

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.

· 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

· 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

· 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

· Budget Methodology / Cost Control

X

· Quality Control Methodology

X

· Schedule

X

· Incentives and promotion of diverse individuals

X

· Partnering with SDVOSB or other disadvantaged businesses

X

· 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.

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

image1.jpeg