Appendix A Evaluation Forms.pdf

PDF 144 KB Posted

Attached to
2026-085P25-Enhanced Protective Placement at CMHHIP
Solicitation number
RFQ1 IHHA 2027000004 1
Issued by
Pueblo County, Colorado

About this file

This file contains evaluation forms for the Colorado state contract opportunity 2026-085P25-Enhanced Protective Placement at CMHHIP. The evaluation forms establish the criteria and scoring methodology that will be used to assess and rank proposals submitted by bidders competing for this contract. The forms outline the specific evaluation categories, weighted point values, and assessment standards that evaluators will apply when reviewing vendor submissions to determine contract award eligibility and selection rankings.

The evaluation forms detail the technical and administrative criteria against which proposals will be measured, including factors such as organizational capability, relevant experience, staffing qualifications, approach to service delivery, and compliance with contract requirements. These standardized forms ensure consistent and objective evaluation across all submissions and provide transparency to potential bidders regarding the assessment process and the relative importance of different proposal elements in the final award decision.

View the file

Other files

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