Appendix A Evaluation Forms.pdf
PDF 144 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFQ1 IHHA 2027000005 1
- Issued by
- Pueblo County, Colorado
About this file
This document is an evaluation forms appendix for the Fire Alarm Device Replacement project at the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo (CMHHIP), a state of Colorado facility. The evaluation forms establish the criteria and methodology for assessing proposals submitted in response to the Fire Alarm Device Replacement solicitation 2027-045M26. The forms provide standardized evaluation worksheets that will be used by the evaluation committee to score and rank bidder submissions based on specified qualifications, technical capabilities, pricing, and other predetermined evaluation factors. The appendix includes multiple evaluation forms designed to ensure consistent and objective assessment of all proposals received.
The evaluation forms establish the scoring framework and weighted criteria that will guide the selection process for the fire alarm device replacement project. The forms specify the evaluation committee's scoring methodology and the relative importance of various proposal elements, including contractor qualifications, technical approach, experience with similar projects, and cost competitiveness. These standardized evaluation instruments are intended to provide transparency in the procurement process and ensure that all bidders are evaluated equitably against the same criteria and standards established in advance of proposal submission.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Appendix B Sample AE Agreement with T&C.pdf | ||
| RFQ 2027-045M26 Fire Alarm Control Devices Upgrade.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: 2027-045M26 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 .