Appendix A Evaluation Forms.pdf
PDF 144 KB Posted
- 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 |
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 .