Appendix A Evaluation Forms.pdf
PDF 144 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFQ1 IHHA 2027000001 1
- Issued by
- Pueblo County, Colorado
About this file
This document is a prequalification and evaluation form package issued by the State of Colorado Office of the State Architect for the State Buildings Program, specifically for project 2027-031M26, Building Stabilization at CMHHIP Buildings Phase 1. The Appendix A evaluation forms establish the criteria and methodology for assessing architectural, engineering, and consulting services firms competing for this qualification-based selection process. The forms require evaluators to assess firm qualifications across six primary categories: project team qualifications and experience, firm and team capabilities, prior project experience, project approach including budget and schedule methodology, equity and diversity initiatives, and work location considerations. Evaluators assign numerical ratings from 0 to 5 (with 0 indicating missing information, 1 unacceptable, 2 poor, 3 fair, 4 good, and 5 excellent) to each criterion, which are then multiplied by predetermined weights ranging from 2 to 5 to calculate weighted scores.
The evaluation process consists of two stages: an initial prequalification submittal evaluation and an oral interview evaluation. Firms must meet minimum requirements, including submission of a letter from a surety and completion of acknowledgment and attestation documents. The prequalification form assigns weights across multiple evaluation categories, with emphasis on project team qualifications, prior experience with similar scope and complexity projects, quality control methodology, and knowledge of local labor and material markets. The oral interview evaluation form applies weights to project team, team capabilities, prior experience, project approach, and work location criteria. Final selection utilizes a ranking matrix that consolidates evaluation scores from multiple evaluators to identify the most qualified firm. The specific response date, award date, and contract term information are not detailed in these evaluation forms, which serve as procedural templates rather than project specification documents.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Appendix B Sample AE Agreement with T&C.pdf | ||
| RFQ AE 2027-031M26.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: 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 .