Appendix A Evaluation Forms.pdf

PDF 144 KB Posted

Attached to
2026-085P25-Enhanced Protective Placement at CMHHIP
Solicitation number
RFQ1 IHHA 2027000004 2
Issued by
Pueblo County, Colorado

About this file

This document contains prequalification and oral interview evaluation forms issued by the Colorado Office of the State Architect State Buildings Program for the Enhanced Protective Placement Unit project. The forms establish the evaluation criteria and methodology for selecting qualified architectural, engineering, and consulting services firms to support this facility project.

The prequalification submittal evaluation form assesses firms across six primary categories: project team qualifications and relevant experience (weighted 4-5 points), firm and team capabilities including management functions and workload (weighted 2-3 points), prior experience with similar projects completed within the last five years and familiarity with Facility Guideline Institute and Joint Commission Accreditation standards (weighted 3-5 points), project approach including budget methodology and schedule (weighted 3-5 points), equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives and partnerships with disadvantaged businesses (weighted 2-3 points), and work location of prime and subconsultants with local area familiarity (weighted 2 points). Evaluators must verify minimum requirements and acknowledgment attestations before rating each criterion on a scale of 0 to 5, with 5 representing excellent qualifications. The oral interview evaluation form uses similar criteria with adjusted weights, assessing project team (4 points), team capabilities (3 points), prior experience (4 points), project approach (5 points), and work location (1 point). A ranking matrix is provided to consolidate results from multiple evaluators and determine the most qualified firm for selection based on combined prequalification and interview scores.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Appendix B Sample AE Agreement with T&C.pdf PDF
Addendum 1.docx DOCX document
2026-085P25 RFQ_AE.SL.docx DOCX document

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: Enhanced Protective Placement Unit 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 4 x = Unique knowledge of key team members relating to the project; specifically the Project Manager’s experience in Mental/Behavioral Health facilities.

X

Experience on projects as a team 3 X = Key staff involvement in project management and on-site presence

Time commitment of key staff 2 X = Qualifications and relevant subconsultant experience 2 X =

2. FIRM/TEAM CAPABILITIES Weight X Rating = Score

Are essential management functions identified? 3 X = Are the functions effectively integrated? (e.g., subconsultants’ role delineated)? 2 X = Current and projected work load. 2 X =

3. PRIOR EXPERIENCE Weight X Rating = Score Experience of the key staff and firm with projects of similar scope and complexity specifically within the last five (5) years. 3

Experience working with Facility Guideline Institute, Behavioral Health Administration and Joint Commission Accreditation. 5 X =

Demonstrated success on past projects of similar scope and complexity

References – at least three (3) references 3 X =

4. PROJECT APPROACH Weight X Rating = Score Budget Methodology / Cost Control Project Approach 3 X =

5 X = Schedule 4 X =

5. EQUITY, DIVERSIY AND INCLUSION Weight X Rating = Score Incentives and promotion of diverse individuals 3 X = Partnering with SDVOSB or other disadvantaged businesses 2 X =

6. WORK LOCATION Weight X Rating = Score Location of prime and subconsultants 2 X = Familiarity with project area 2 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

4 x =

2. TEAM CAPABILITIES

3 x

3. PRIOR EXPERIENCE

4 x

4. PROJECT APPROACH

5 x

5. WORK LOCATION

1 x

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 .