Appendix A Evaluation Forms.pdf

PDF 143 KB Posted

Attached to
2027-026M26- Upgrade Heat Plant Controls Systems, Building 3
Solicitation number
RFQ1 IHHA 2026000047 3
Issued by
Pueblo County, Colorado

About this file

This document comprises prequalification and oral interview evaluation forms developed by the State of Colorado Office of the State Architect for the State Buildings Program in connection with the 2027-026M26 Upgrade Heat Plant Controls System project for Building 35 under the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo Phase 1 of 2. The evaluation forms establish a structured qualification-based selection process for architectural, engineering, and consulting services firms. The prequalification submittal evaluation form assesses firms across six primary categories: Project Team (weight range 4-5), Firm/Team Capabilities (weight range 3-5), Prior Experience (weight range 5), Project Approach (weight range 4-5), Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (weight range 2), and Work Location (weight range 2-5). Each criterion receives a numerical rating from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating not provided, 1 representing unacceptable, 2 poor, 3 fair, 4 good, and 5 excellent. The oral interview evaluation form mirrors the assessment structure using five primary categories: Project Team, Team Capabilities, Prior Experience, Project Approach, and Work Location, with assigned weights totaling the final score for qualified firms.

The evaluation process requires agencies to assign weighted values to all criteria prior to evaluation and may establish a minimum passing score threshold as a percentage of total available points. The prequalification submittal must include minimum requirements verification and acknowledgment and attestation documentation, with specific attention to surety letters. The ranking matrix allows evaluators to compare multiple firms across both preliminary and interview evaluations, with provisions for up to six evaluators to assess and rank qualified firms for selection. No pricing, funding sources, contract term details, or incumbent information are specified in these evaluation form templates.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Addendum 2 Answers final.docx DOCX document
Appendix B Sample AE Agreement with T&C.pdf PDF
2027-026M26 Sign in.pdf PDF
RFQ 2027-026M26 Phase 1 Main.SL.docx DOCX document
Addendum 2 SBP-BldgCodePolicy-P3 2026.pdf PDF
Addendum 1 2027-026M26 Presentation.pptx PPTX presentation
Addendum 2 Exh-A-BldgCodes 2026.pdf 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

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: 2027-026M26 /Upgrade Heat Plant Controls System, Building 35, CMHHIP Ph1 of 2 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 5 x = Unique knowledge of key team members 4 X = Experience on projects as a team 5 X = Key staff involvement in project management and on-site presence

5 X

Time commitment of key staff 4 X = Qualifications and relevant subconsultant experience 5 X =

2. FIRM/TEAM CAPABILITIES Weight X Rating = Score

Are the lines of authority and coordination clearly defined? 5 X =

Are essential management functions identified? 5 X = Are the functions effectively integrated? (e.g., subconsultants’ role delineated)? 4 X = Current and projected work load. 3 X =

3. PRIOR EXPERIENCE Weight X Rating = Score Experience of key staff and firm with projects of similar scope and complexity 5 X = Demonstrated success on past projects of similar scope and complexity

5 X

References 5 X =

4. PROJECT APPROACH Weight X Rating = Score Budget Methodology / Cost Control 4 X = Quality Control Methodology 5 X = Schedule 4 X =

5. EQUITY, DIVERSIY AND INCLUSION Weight X Rating = Score Incentives and promotion of diverse individuals 2 X = Partnering with SDVOSB or other disadvantaged businesses 2 X =

6. WORK LOCATION Weight X Rating = Score Location of prime and subconsultants 3 X = Familiarity with project area 2 X = Knowledge of local labor and material markets 5 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

5 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

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .