Appendix A Evaluation Forms.pdf
PDF 144 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFQ1 IHHA 2027000001 4
- Issued by
- Pueblo County, Colorado
About this file
This document comprises evaluation forms and a ranking matrix developed by the State of Colorado Office of the State Architect for the State Buildings Program to assess prequalifications and oral interviews for architectural and engineering services on project 2027-031M26, Building Stabilization at CMHHIP Buildings Phase 1. The prequalification submittal evaluation form (Appendix A1) establishes weighted criteria across six categories: Project Team (qualifications, team experience, key staff involvement, time commitment, and subconsultant experience); Firm/Team Capabilities (authority and coordination, management functions, integration, and workload); Prior Experience (similar project scope and complexity, demonstrated success, and references); Project Approach (budget methodology, quality control, and schedule); Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (diverse individual promotion and disadvantaged business partnerships); and Work Location (prime and subconsultant location, project area familiarity, and local market knowledge). Evaluators assign numerical ratings from 0 to 5 for each criterion, with 0 indicating missing information, 1 representing unacceptable, 2 poor, 3 fair, 4 good, and 5 excellent. The oral interview evaluation form (Appendix A2) applies weights to five primary categories: Project Team, Team Capabilities, Prior Experience, Project Approach, and Work Location, using the same 0-to-5 rating scale.
The evaluation process requires firms to meet minimum requirements including submission of a letter from surety and completion of an acknowledgment and attestation. Weights are assigned as whole numbers prior to evaluation, with Project Team and Firm/Team Capabilities each carrying weights of 5 in the prequalification phase, while Equity, Diversity and Inclusion carries a weight of 2. The Appendix A3 ranking matrix consolidates both prequalification and oral interview scores to determine the most qualified firm for architectural, engineering, or consulting services selection. The document emphasizes that agencies may include additional criteria reflecting unique project characteristics and may establish passing scores as a percentage of total available points prior to evaluation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Addendum 1.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFQ AE 2027-031M26.SL.docx | DOCX document | |
| Addendum_2_Answers.docx | DOCX document | |
| Addendum 3.docx | DOCX document | |
| Appendix B Sample AE Agreement with T&C.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: 2027-031M26 / Building Stabilization, CMHHIP Buildings 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 .