Appendix A Evaluation Forms.pdf
PDF 144 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFQ1 IHHA 2027000005 2
- Issued by
- Pueblo County, Colorado
About this file
This document comprises evaluation forms from the State of Colorado Office of the State Architect State Buildings Program for the prequalification and selection of architectural/engineering/consulting services for Project 2027-045M26 Fire Alarm Device Replacement, CMHHIP Phase 1 of 4. The file contains three standardized evaluation instruments: a Prequalification Submittal Evaluation Form (Appendix A1), an Oral Interview Evaluation Form (Appendix A2), and a Prequalification and Oral Interview Ranking Matrix (Appendix A3). These forms are designed to assess qualified firms through a multi-stage selection process that evaluates submitters on minimum requirements verification, project team qualifications, firm and team capabilities, prior experience, project approach, equity and diversity initiatives, and work location considerations.
The evaluation framework employs a weighted scoring system using whole numbers, with evaluators assigning numerical ratings from 0 to 5 across multiple criteria categories. The prequalification evaluation assigns weights ranging from 2 to 5 points across six evaluation categories, including project team experience and qualifications, firm capabilities and management structure, demonstrated success on similar projects, project methodology and controls, equity and diversity promotion, and geographic location and local market knowledge. The oral interview evaluation uses a simplified structure with five weighted criteria categories. All evaluation forms require documentation of minimum requirements compliance, including letters from sureties, and the ranking matrix consolidates results from multiple evaluators to determine the most qualified firm for selection. The forms are designed to provide objective, quantifiable assessment mechanisms for comparing competing proposals within a qualification-based selection process.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| CMHIP 035.pdf | ||
| RFQ 2027-045M26 Fire Alarm Control Devices Upgrade.docx | DOCX document | |
| CMHIP 054.pdf | ||
| CMHIP 055.pdf | ||
| CMHIP 119.pdf | ||
| CMHIP 049.pdf | ||
| Addendum 1 final (5).docx | DOCX document | |
| CMHIP 001.pdf | ||
| 2027-045M26 Presolicitation Meeting Sign In (7-24-26).pdf | ||
| CMHIP 033.pdf | ||
| Appendix B Sample AE Agreement with T&C.pdf |
Show all 11
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: 2027-045M26 Fire Alarm Device Replacement, CMHHIP Ph1 of 4 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 5 X = defined?
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 .