Appendix A Evaluation Forms.pdf
PDF 161 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NCC WTP - Collection System Optimization
- Solicitation number
- RFP FAAA 2027000097 1
- Issued by
- Grand County, Colorado
About this file
This file contains evaluation forms for Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) contracts administered by the State of Colorado Office of the State Architect, State Buildings Program. The document provides standardized evaluation criteria and scoring methodologies for assessing qualified firms bidding on state construction projects. The evaluation process utilizes multiple evaluators who independently score firms based on defined criteria, with scores subsequently compiled and ranked to determine the most qualified and advantageous firm to the state.
The evaluation framework establishes a weighted scoring system across six primary categories: firm qualifications (including organizational structure, subcontractor management, Colorado workforce participation, and safety practices), management team qualifications and relevant experience, project management approach addressing cost and schedule effectiveness, prior project experience and success across multiple completed projects, equity and diversity inclusion practices, and claims or litigation history. Ratings are assessed on a scale of zero to five, with zero indicating information not provided, one indicating unacceptable performance, and five indicating excellent performance. The document specifies that qualifications are weighted at 60 percent and sealed proposal fees at 40 percent in the final ranking calculation, with the lowest proposal fee receiving the maximum proposal score and all other fees scored proportionally. A passing score threshold is to be established by the state prior to evaluation, and firms are numerically ranked based on cumulative qualifications and fee scores, with the highest-scoring firm identified as most qualified and advantageous to the state.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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
IPD-GMP-App-A (R1)
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHITECT
STATE BUILDINGS PROGRAM
APPENDIX A: EVALUATION OF QUALIFICATIONS FORM:
INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY
Name of Firm:____________________________________________________________________ Name of Project: _________________________________________________________________ Evaluator No:_______________________________________ Date:______________________________________________
RFP REFERENCE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Y ____ N ____
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ATTESTATION INCLUDED: Y ____ N ____
If the minimum requirements have not been met, specify the reason(s):
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Weights are to be assigned prior to evaluation and are to be consistent on all evaluation forms.
2. Use only whole numbers.
3. Rating: 0 = not provided, 1 = Unacceptable, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
4. Total score includes the sum total of all criteria.
5. A passing score (as a percentage of the total points available) is to be established by the state prior to evaluation.
1. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE FIRM(S) Weight X Rating = Score ◻ Overall qualifications 5 x =
◻ Organizational structure/lines of authority 2 X =
◻ Subcontractor selection and management 3 X
◻ Colorado workforce 1 X
◻ Safety/employee support 3 X
2. QUALIFICATIONS OF MANAGEMENT TEAM MEMBERS Weight X Rating = Score
◻ Qualifications and relevant experience of superintendent 5 X =
◻ Qualifications and relevant experience of in-house staff 5 X
◻ Location/Access 2
3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH Weight X Rating = Score ◻ Approach to successful CM/GC Services
Cost Effectiveness 5 X =
Schedule effectiveness 10 X
Quality effectiveness 10 X
◻ Competitively Bid/Self Performed Work 5
4. PRIOR PROJECT EXPERIENCE/SUCCESS Weight X Rating = Score ◻ Project #1 8 X =
Timeliness
Disruption
Budget Considerations
Quality
Acceptability/Punchlist
Compliance ◻ Project #2 8 X =
Timeliness
Disruption
Budget Considerations
Quality
Acceptability/Punchlist
Compliance ◻ Project #3 8 X =
Timeliness
Disruption
Budget Considerations
Quality
Acceptability/Punchlist
Compliance
5. EQUITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION Weight X Rating = Score ◻ Hiring and Promotion Practices 5 X =
◻ Subcontracting Practices 5 X =
6. MISCELLANEOUS Weight X Rating = Score
◻ Claims/litigation history 5 X =
Total Score: _________
STATE BUILDINGS PROGRAM
APPENDIX A1: EVALUATION OF QUALIFICATIONS FORM:
INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY
Name of Firm:____________________________________________________________________ Name of Project: _________________________________________________________________ Evaluator No:_______________________________________ Date:______________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Weights are to be assigned prior to evaluation and are to be consistent on all evaluation forms.
2. Use only whole numbers.
3. Rating: 0 = not provided, 1 = Unacceptable, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
4. Total score includes the sum total of all criteria.
5. A passing score (as a percentage of the total points available) is to be established by the state prior to evaluation.
1. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE FIRM(S) Weight
Rating
Score
5 x =
2. QUALIFICATIONS OF MANAGEMENT TEAM
MEMBERS
10 X =
3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
10 X =
4. PRIOR PROJECT EXPERIENCE/SUCCESS
5 X =
5. EQUITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION
5 X =
Total Score: _________
STATE BUILDINGS PROGRAM
APPENDIX A2: QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL RANKING
MATRIX: INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY
INSTRUCTIONS/EXAMPLE:
1. QUALIFICATIONS Example uses the 60% / Fee 40% split. Insert total score from each evaluator's SUBMITTAL review.
2. Add all evaluators’ total scores and divide by the number of evaluators to determine the average score for each firm’s qualifications.
3. The maximum score for qualifications on the evaluation form is equivalent to 40 points and is equivalent to the maximum points available for qualifications. Therefore, each firm’s score is determined as a percentage of the maximum points available. To score each average qualification score, use the example formula.
4. Assume the highest score is 600.
SCORING OF QUALIFICATIONS
FIRM B: 600 X 40 points = 40 points
FIRM C: 500 X 40 points = 33.33 points
FIRM A: 400 X 40 points = 26.66 points
5. Determine score for each firm’s sealed proposal with the lowest fee being equivalent to a maximum score of 60 points. To score each proposal, use the example formula.
6. Assume the lowest Proposal was $100,000.
SCORING OF PROPOSALS
FIRM A: $100,000 X 60 points = 60 points $100,000
FIRM B: $100,000 X 60 points = 48 points $125,000
FIRM C: $100,000 X 60 points = 39.99 points $150,000
7. Add the average qualification score to the Proposal score to determine cumulative qualifications and fee score.
8. Numerically rank all firms with the highest scoring firm being the most qualified and advantageous to the state.
FIRM
QUALIFICATIONS
AVE.
QUALS
SCORE
PROPOS
AL
PROPO
SAL
RANK
EVAL
#1
EVA
L #2
EVA
L #3
EVA
L #4
EVA
L #5
EVA
L #6
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .